OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 06:42:25 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.2%)
both metaphorically and literally - 156 (46.2%)
Total Voters: 338

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 327167 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,291


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1485 on: October 09, 2009, 04:35:32 AM »

The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
But why must we define science as something secular, oppose it to the "sacred" content of the Church, and thereby justify our efforts to dismiss the findings of scientific observation altogether?

I didn't and don't define science as "secular." I am careful to make a distinction between legitimate science and secular science. Secular science is capable of ascertaining truth about the laws and principles of creation; but when it arrogates to itself the sole authority to interpret and discover truth about the natural world, then it operates essentially like the leaders of a cult (i.e. the secular scientists are the "experts," and the rest of us ignorant sheep must blindly agree with whatever they tell us).

There is no contradiction between legitimate science and Christian Truth; there is often contradiction between pseudo-science and Christian truth. I define "pseudo-science" as that which operates from an atheistic presuppostion.

Selam

"Atheistic presupposition." What about the presupposition that acknowledging the role of evolution in biological and other natural processes must necessarily be atheistic?

Theistic evolution is the most untenable position out of the three posssibilities of a) Creation/Intelligent Design, b) Atheistic Evolution, c) Theistic Evolution. This is because the ostensible evidence for macro evolution only has merit within the framework of atheism. To allow for the existence of God is to allow for the possibility of an alternative to macro evolution. Therefore, in the light of a competing theory, the proposed evidence for the theory of Darwinian evolution is found to be sorely lacking.

Theistic evolution is a nice sounding compromise, but it is roundly rejected by leading proponents of macro evolution within the scientific community. Only by assuming an atheistic presupposition will their Darwinian theory have a chance of holding up in the light of intense scrutiny.

Christians are free to believe in theistic evolution if they want to. But it is a scientifically naive and ignorant position to hold.

Selam 
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 04:39:27 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,291


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1486 on: October 09, 2009, 04:47:56 AM »

My repsonses are as follows in red:

The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
But why must we define science as something secular, oppose it to the "sacred" content of the Church, and thereby justify our efforts to dismiss the findings of scientific observation altogether?

I didn't and don't define science as "secular." I am careful to make a distinction between legitimate science and secular science.
But what is legitimate science, and why is it legitimate?

Legitimate science is that which adheres to the rigid criteria of the scientific method. If you want to know what the criteria of this method are, then I refer you to Karl Hempel's book, The Philosophy of Natural Science.

Secular science is capable of ascertaining truth about the laws and principles of creation; but when it arrogates to itself the sole authority to interpret and discover truth about the natural world, then it operates essentially like the leaders of a cult (i.e. the secular scientists are the "experts," and the rest of us ignorant sheep must blindly agree with whatever they tell us).
Do you see "secular" science arrogating to itself sole authority to discover truth about the natural world?  Even if it is, how are our "secular" scientists proclaiming themselves "experts" that we ignorant sheep must follow blindly?

By rejecting prima facie the possibility for the existence of God. By refusing to allow Intelligent Design into the debate. By posturing themselves as authorities on "facts" while relegating religion to the realm of "values."  

There is no contradiction between legitimate science and Christian Truth; there is often contradiction between pseudo-science and Christian truth. I define "pseudo-science" as that which operates from an atheistic presuppostion.
So science must be based on a [Christian] theistic presupposition to be legitimate?  What is this "atheistic presupposition" you see as the foundation of what you call [illegitimate] "secular science"?

As I stated above, legitimate science is based on the rigid criteria of the scientific method.


Selam
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 04:50:46 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #1487 on: October 09, 2009, 04:55:46 AM »

Theistic evolution is the most untenable position out of the three possibilities of a) Creation/Intelligent Design, b) Atheistic Evolution, c) Theistic Evolution.

Proof?

Quote
This is because the ostensible evidence for macro evolution only has merit within the framework of atheism.

Proof?

Quote
Darwinian evolution

Who mentioned Darwin??

Quote
Theistic evolution is a nice sounding compromise, but it is roundly rejected by leading proponents of macro evolution within the scientific community.

Those "leading proponents" are welcome to take their concerns up with God.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,291


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1488 on: October 09, 2009, 05:07:51 AM »

Theistic evolution is the most untenable position out of the three possibilities of a) Creation/Intelligent Design, b) Atheistic Evolution, c) Theistic Evolution.

Proof?

Quote
This is because the ostensible evidence for macro evolution only has merit within the framework of atheism.

Proof?

Quote
Darwinian evolution

Who mentioned Darwin??

Quote
Theistic evolution is a nice sounding compromise, but it is roundly rejected by leading proponents of macro evolution within the scientific community.

Those "leading proponents" are welcome to take their concerns up with God.


The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam
Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,221


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1489 on: October 09, 2009, 05:33:15 AM »

My repsonses are as follows in red:

The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
But why must we define science as something secular, oppose it to the "sacred" content of the Church, and thereby justify our efforts to dismiss the findings of scientific observation altogether?

I didn't and don't define science as "secular." I am careful to make a distinction between legitimate science and secular science.
But what is legitimate science, and why is it legitimate?

Legitimate science is that which adheres to the rigid criteria of the scientific method. If you want to know what the criteria of this method are, then I refer you to Karl Hempel's book, The Philosophy of Natural Science.

Secular science is capable of ascertaining truth about the laws and principles of creation; but when it arrogates to itself the sole authority to interpret and discover truth about the natural world, then it operates essentially like the leaders of a cult (i.e. the secular scientists are the "experts," and the rest of us ignorant sheep must blindly agree with whatever they tell us).
Do you see "secular" science arrogating to itself sole authority to discover truth about the natural world?  Even if it is, how are our "secular" scientists proclaiming themselves "experts" that we ignorant sheep must follow blindly?

By rejecting prima facie the possibility for the existence of God. By refusing to allow Intelligent Design into the debate. By posturing themselves as authorities on "facts" while relegating religion to the realm of "values."  

There is no contradiction between legitimate science and Christian Truth; there is often contradiction between pseudo-science and Christian truth. I define "pseudo-science" as that which operates from an atheistic presuppostion.
So science must be based on a [Christian] theistic presupposition to be legitimate?  What is this "atheistic presupposition" you see as the foundation of what you call [illegitimate] "secular science"?

As I stated above, legitimate science is based on the rigid criteria of the scientific method.


Selam

As regards Intelligent Design, why should that be allowed into the debate?  I'm familiar with Michael Behe, having read his book, Darwin's Black Box, and heard him speak live.  I'm still not convinced that Intelligent Design should be accepted as science, though.  It might make for excellent philosophy, but I don't see how it can be truly recognized as consistent with the scientific method and therefore worthy of being called science.

By posturing themselves as authorities on "facts" while relegating religion to the realm of "values."
This argument is in fact just a rephrasing of the very statement I asked you to explain.  It therefore does not answer my question.

There is no contradiction between legitimate science and Christian Truth; there is often contradiction between pseudo-science and Christian truth. I define "pseudo-science" as that which operates from an atheistic presuppostion.
So science must be based on a [Christian] theistic presupposition to be legitimate?  What is this "atheistic presupposition" you see as the foundation of what you call [illegitimate] "secular science"?

As I stated above, legitimate science is based on the rigid criteria of the scientific method.
This doesn't answer the question immediately preceding, Gebre.  What is the "atheistic presupposition" you see as the foundation of illegitimate pseudo-science?

If this "atheistic presupposition" (whatever it is) is indeed the definition of pseudo-science, then it follows logically that the opposite, true science, is defined by a foundation that is not atheistic--that is to say, theistic.  I'm not aware that Carl Hempel's naturalistic philosophy and definition of the scientific method would permit such a theistic foundation.  How, then, can you say legitimate science is defined only by strict adherence to the scientific method defined by Hempel, if it must also have a theistic foundation?  It seems contradictory to me to assert (implicitly) that science must have a theistic foundation to be legit, even though Hempel's scientific method, which you assert to be the definition of legit science, doesn't make allowance for the existence of the metaphysical (i.e., God).
Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #1490 on: October 09, 2009, 05:40:51 AM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1491 on: October 09, 2009, 06:08:30 AM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.

 laugh laugh
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,291


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1492 on: October 09, 2009, 06:53:45 AM »

My repsonses are as follows in red:

The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
But why must we define science as something secular, oppose it to the "sacred" content of the Church, and thereby justify our efforts to dismiss the findings of scientific observation altogether?

I didn't and don't define science as "secular." I am careful to make a distinction between legitimate science and secular science.
But what is legitimate science, and why is it legitimate?

Legitimate science is that which adheres to the rigid criteria of the scientific method. If you want to know what the criteria of this method are, then I refer you to Karl Hempel's book, The Philosophy of Natural Science.

Secular science is capable of ascertaining truth about the laws and principles of creation; but when it arrogates to itself the sole authority to interpret and discover truth about the natural world, then it operates essentially like the leaders of a cult (i.e. the secular scientists are the "experts," and the rest of us ignorant sheep must blindly agree with whatever they tell us).
Do you see "secular" science arrogating to itself sole authority to discover truth about the natural world?  Even if it is, how are our "secular" scientists proclaiming themselves "experts" that we ignorant sheep must follow blindly?

By rejecting prima facie the possibility for the existence of God. By refusing to allow Intelligent Design into the debate. By posturing themselves as authorities on "facts" while relegating religion to the realm of "values."  

There is no contradiction between legitimate science and Christian Truth; there is often contradiction between pseudo-science and Christian truth. I define "pseudo-science" as that which operates from an atheistic presuppostion.
So science must be based on a [Christian] theistic presupposition to be legitimate?  What is this "atheistic presupposition" you see as the foundation of what you call [illegitimate] "secular science"?

As I stated above, legitimate science is based on the rigid criteria of the scientific method.


Selam

As regards Intelligent Design, why should that be allowed into the debate?  I'm familiar with Michael Behe, having read his book, Darwin's Black Box, and heard him speak live.  I'm still not convinced that Intelligent Design should be accepted as science, though.  It might make for excellent philosophy, but I don't see how it can be truly recognized as consistent with the scientific method and therefore worthy of being called science.

By posturing themselves as authorities on "facts" while relegating religion to the realm of "values."
This argument is in fact just a rephrasing of the very statement I asked you to explain.  It therefore does not answer my question.

There is no contradiction between legitimate science and Christian Truth; there is often contradiction between pseudo-science and Christian truth. I define "pseudo-science" as that which operates from an atheistic presuppostion.
So science must be based on a [Christian] theistic presupposition to be legitimate?  What is this "atheistic presupposition" you see as the foundation of what you call [illegitimate] "secular science"?

As I stated above, legitimate science is based on the rigid criteria of the scientific method.
This doesn't answer the question immediately preceding, Gebre.  What is the "atheistic presupposition" you see as the foundation of illegitimate pseudo-science?

If this "atheistic presupposition" (whatever it is) is indeed the definition of pseudo-science, then it follows logically that the opposite, true science, is defined by a foundation that is not atheistic--that is to say, theistic.  I'm not aware that Carl Hempel's naturalistic philosophy and definition of the scientific method would permit such a theistic foundation.  How, then, can you say legitimate science is defined only by strict adherence to the scientific method defined by Hempel, if it must also have a theistic foundation?  It seems contradictory to me to assert (implicitly) that science must have a theistic foundation to be legit, even though Hempel's scientific method, which you assert to be the definition of legit science, doesn't make allowance for the existence of the metaphysical (i.e., God).

I won't discuss this further with you unless you stop making non sequiturs in regards to my statements. My statements are clear, and you need to interpret them at face value.

Do some more research on the concensus of the scientific community regarding atheistic evolution, and then get back to me.

Selam

Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,291


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1493 on: October 09, 2009, 06:56:01 AM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.

Clarification please?

If you are making fun of me, at least let me know why. Huh

Forgive me, but I really don't have time to read through 32 pages of this debate. As I've stated earlier, I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith. I have also pointed out the logical doubts I have about macro evolution, as well as the moral problems that the theory produces. But no one has addressed these things; so I really must move on now unless my points are fairly addressed. I'm not trying to be rude. Free will means feedom of belief, so believe whatever you want. You all are still my brothers and sisters. Smiley



Selam
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 07:00:49 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1494 on: October 09, 2009, 07:40:21 AM »

I think he means "environment" in its largest meaning as "environmental conditions", such as weather, geographical area, involved ecosystems cohabiting the same area, "social" life within a species and with other species, etc.
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1495 on: October 09, 2009, 07:42:44 AM »

Dear Gebre,
you are so lucky your church gives a definitive approach to the matter. It is difficult to co-exist with an infinity ways to believe in the origins of life, especially when they offer different theological conclusions on our existence. It's unlucky you Ethiopian Orthodox aren't Dyophysite, I would have been a member of yours in a while.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,291


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1496 on: October 09, 2009, 08:10:07 AM »

Dear Gebre,
you are so lucky your church gives a definitive approach to the matter. It is difficult to co-exist with an infinity ways to believe in the origins of life, especially when they offer different theological conclusions on our existence. It's unlucky you Ethiopian Orthodox aren't Dyophysite, I would have been a member of yours in a while.

In Christ,   Alex

The good news is that I think we are coming closer and closer to reconciling our Christological doctrines. It appears to be more a matter of semantics than a real theological difference. Let's keep praying for unity! Smiley

Selam
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 08:10:30 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1497 on: October 09, 2009, 09:21:24 AM »

Dear Gebre,
you are so lucky your church gives a definitive approach to the matter. It is difficult to co-exist with an infinity ways to believe in the origins of life, especially when they offer different theological conclusions on our existence. It's unlucky you Ethiopian Orthodox aren't Dyophysite, I would have been a member of yours in a while.

In Christ,   Alex

The good news is that I think we are coming closer and closer to reconciling our Christological doctrines. It appears to be more a matter of semantics than a real theological difference. Let's keep praying for unity! Smiley

Selam

Indeed! Let's pray for this, as Jesus did: Ut unum sint!
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1498 on: October 09, 2009, 09:26:09 AM »

Now I have a little question for you, brother...
you wrote in a previous post that the Ethiopian Orthodox say that the world was created 7000 years ago, due to the chronology of some of your Ethiopian-specific books (as the Book of Jubilees), so I wonder: which OT chronology does your Book of Genesis contain? Is it like the LXX (which puts creation further in the past) or as in the Massoretic Text (which would agree with Jubilees)? does your Genesis version list Cainan, son of Arphacsad and father of Selah, as the LXX, Jubilees and st. Luke do, or is he omitted? I know this risks to go a little bit off topic, but the matter of genealogies has always been interesting in my personal studies on the textual history of the Scriptures.

In Christ,   Alex
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 09:26:23 AM by AlexanderOfBergamo » Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #1499 on: October 09, 2009, 09:39:56 AM »

As far as falsification goes, I will have to roll with Imre Lakatos, and Paul Feyerabend.

That seems a bit self-contradicting because Lakatos did not completely deny the role of falcification in science, while Feyerabend did. Lakatos's main idea is that in a particular period of the development of science, "research programs" form, each of them having a "hard core" (central hypothesis) and a "protective belt" (supplementary assumptions). An individual scientist can make a choice to question the "hard core," but then he/she becomes actually affiliated to another research program. Lakatos called this "negative heuristics" and used the example of Tycho Brahe who excluded himself from the Copernican research program by questioning its "hard core" - the idea that the planets orbit the Sun and that the planet Earth also orbits the sun. On the other hand, questioning, testing, falsifying the "protective belt" is "positive heuristics" that benefits any research program. For example, Kepler falsified the idea that planetary orbits are circular, introducing ellyptic orbits instead. 

Feyerabend viewed scientific falsification as yet another sort of "trickery and propaganda," sticking to his main point that all science is an anarchistic, voluntaristic, subjective pursuit.
Logged

Love never fails.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,221


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1500 on: October 09, 2009, 02:05:40 PM »

My repsonses are as follows in red:

The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
But why must we define science as something secular, oppose it to the "sacred" content of the Church, and thereby justify our efforts to dismiss the findings of scientific observation altogether?

I didn't and don't define science as "secular." I am careful to make a distinction between legitimate science and secular science.
But what is legitimate science, and why is it legitimate?

Legitimate science is that which adheres to the rigid criteria of the scientific method. If you want to know what the criteria of this method are, then I refer you to Karl Hempel's book, The Philosophy of Natural Science.

Secular science is capable of ascertaining truth about the laws and principles of creation; but when it arrogates to itself the sole authority to interpret and discover truth about the natural world, then it operates essentially like the leaders of a cult (i.e. the secular scientists are the "experts," and the rest of us ignorant sheep must blindly agree with whatever they tell us).
Do you see "secular" science arrogating to itself sole authority to discover truth about the natural world?  Even if it is, how are our "secular" scientists proclaiming themselves "experts" that we ignorant sheep must follow blindly?

By rejecting prima facie the possibility for the existence of God. By refusing to allow Intelligent Design into the debate. By posturing themselves as authorities on "facts" while relegating religion to the realm of "values."  

There is no contradiction between legitimate science and Christian Truth; there is often contradiction between pseudo-science and Christian truth. I define "pseudo-science" as that which operates from an atheistic presuppostion.
So science must be based on a [Christian] theistic presupposition to be legitimate?  What is this "atheistic presupposition" you see as the foundation of what you call [illegitimate] "secular science"?

As I stated above, legitimate science is based on the rigid criteria of the scientific method.


Selam

As regards Intelligent Design, why should that be allowed into the debate?  I'm familiar with Michael Behe, having read his book, Darwin's Black Box, and heard him speak live.  I'm still not convinced that Intelligent Design should be accepted as science, though.  It might make for excellent philosophy, but I don't see how it can be truly recognized as consistent with the scientific method and therefore worthy of being called science.

By posturing themselves as authorities on "facts" while relegating religion to the realm of "values."
This argument is in fact just a rephrasing of the very statement I asked you to explain.  It therefore does not answer my question.

There is no contradiction between legitimate science and Christian Truth; there is often contradiction between pseudo-science and Christian truth. I define "pseudo-science" as that which operates from an atheistic presuppostion.
So science must be based on a [Christian] theistic presupposition to be legitimate?  What is this "atheistic presupposition" you see as the foundation of what you call [illegitimate] "secular science"?

As I stated above, legitimate science is based on the rigid criteria of the scientific method.
This doesn't answer the question immediately preceding, Gebre.  What is the "atheistic presupposition" you see as the foundation of illegitimate pseudo-science?

If this "atheistic presupposition" (whatever it is) is indeed the definition of pseudo-science, then it follows logically that the opposite, true science, is defined by a foundation that is not atheistic--that is to say, theistic.  I'm not aware that Carl Hempel's naturalistic philosophy and definition of the scientific method would permit such a theistic foundation.  How, then, can you say legitimate science is defined only by strict adherence to the scientific method defined by Hempel, if it must also have a theistic foundation?  It seems contradictory to me to assert (implicitly) that science must have a theistic foundation to be legit, even though Hempel's scientific method, which you assert to be the definition of legit science, doesn't make allowance for the existence of the metaphysical (i.e., God).

I won't discuss this further with you unless you stop making non sequiturs in regards to my statements. My statements are clear, and you need to interpret them at face value.
Do you still assume that disagreement with or criticism of your logic is a personal attack on you?  I asked questions solely of things you said, and this in an attempt to understand the underlying premises of your logic.  I based my statements on nothing but your responses to my questions.  If my responses are non sequiturs then tell me how they are non sequiturs.  You may think your words clear, but are you sure they accurately communicate what's really on your mind?

Do some more research on the concensus of the scientific community regarding atheistic evolution, and then get back to me.
How does that follow from anything you just posted?

FWIW, I think scrutiny of the foundational premises of your reasoning, even if you would rather discuss just the conclusions themselves, is perfectly on topic and appropriate to any discussion of your point of view.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,438


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #1501 on: October 09, 2009, 02:08:48 PM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.

Clarification please?

If you are making fun of me, at least let me know why. Huh

Forgive me, but I really don't have time to read through 32 pages of this debate. As I've stated earlier, I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith. I have also pointed out the logical doubts I have about macro evolution, as well as the moral problems that the theory produces. But no one has addressed these things; so I really must move on now unless my points are fairly addressed. I'm not trying to be rude. Free will means feedom of belief, so believe whatever you want. You all are still my brothers and sisters. Smiley



Selam

Of course, Gebre.  We are your brothers and sisters in Satanic deception.

May my brothers and sisters in rational ignorance also be blessed.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,221


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1502 on: October 09, 2009, 02:16:38 PM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.

Clarification please?

If you are making fun of me, at least let me know why. Huh
Ukiemeister asked you for proof of the assertions you made, and you offered nothing in reply but mere restatements of your arguments and more assertions without proof.  I'm sorry, but when you make assertions in a debate such as this, you need to be prepared to back up your statements with citations from outside sources, not just pass us off to some vague, "ask the scientific community yourself, and you'll find that my words are accurate."  You did not engage any of the specific points Ukiemeister brought up; therefore, he's quite justified in complaining in a roundabout way that you didn't read his post.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 02:17:34 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,438


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #1503 on: October 09, 2009, 02:26:12 PM »

Oh yes, the "scientific community."  I don't know which "scientific community" Gebre is referring to, but where I am from, Gebre's "scientific community" is either really a "philosophical community" or non-existent.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #1504 on: October 09, 2009, 02:33:47 PM »

As I stated above, legitimate science is based on the rigid criteria of the scientific method.

Unfortunately, modern explorers of science, both scientists (A.F. Chalmers - a physicist) and philosophers (K. Popper, T. Kuhn, I. Lakatos, P. Feyerabend and other) arrive to the conclusion that the "scientific method" as a universal set of rules simply does not exist. See A.F. Chalmers, "What Is This Thing Called Science?", Hackett Publishing Co., 1999 (3rd ed.), ISBN ISBN: 0-87220-452-9.
Logged

Love never fails.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1505 on: October 09, 2009, 02:42:32 PM »

On the Discovery Channel, "Discovering Ardi" (11 October, 2009, 9 pm).

Quote
Following publication in the journal Science on the discovery and study of a 4.4 million-year-old female partial skeleton nicknamed "Ardi," Discovery Channel will present a world premiere special, DISCOVERING ARDI, Sunday October 11 at 9 PM (ET/PT) documenting the sustained, intensive investigation leading up to this landmark publication of the Ardipithecus ramidus fossils.

UNDERSTANDING ARDI, a one-hour special produced in collaboration with CBS News will air at 11 PM (ET/PT) immediately following DISCOVERING ARDI. The special is moderated by former CBS and CNN anchor Paula Zahn and includes research team members Dr. Tim White, Dr. Yohannes Haile-Selassie, Dr. Giday WoldeGabriel, Dr. Owen Lovejoy, and science journalist Ann Gibbons

The scientific investigation began in the Ethiopian desert 17 years ago, and now opens a new chapter on human evolution, revealing the first evolutionary steps our ancestors took after we diverged from a common ancestor we once shared with living chimpanzees. "Ardi's" centerpiece skeleton, the other hominids she lived with, and the rocks, soils, plants and animals that made up her world were analyzed in laboratories around the world, and the scientists have now published their findings in the prestigious journal Science.

"Ardi" is now the oldest skeleton from our (hominid) branch of the primate family tree.
I wonder if Dr. Haile-Selassie is Orthodox?
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 02:43:04 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.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,438


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #1506 on: October 09, 2009, 02:45:42 PM »

I think he means "environment" in its largest meaning as "environmental conditions", such as weather, geographical area, involved ecosystems cohabiting the same area, "social" life within a species and with other species, etc.

Then honestly, I'm having trouble understanding what he's asking.  Just because cars look similar through some sort of "environmental" processes, why shouldn't animals look similar?

I'm lost in the question there.  A rephrase may help me, or perhaps just getting to the point.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1507 on: October 09, 2009, 03:08:23 PM »

Factor A+
Factor B+
Factor C=
------------
Result D

I think THIS is the problem for jnorm888. If the environmental conditions sum up as mathematical factors, the result should always be the same. Seen from the point of view of evolution: in a cold environment with ice there'd be only different races of bears. His idea is that in maths results are linear, i.e. to certain causes there are always the same consequences. So, if evolution is a linear - or better, a mathematical process - that wouldn't justify biodiversity. Now, what jnorm888 is probably missing is an essential element of evolution: convergent evolution, i.e. the fact that different creatures can adopt similar, if not identical, evolutionary solutions when sharing the same environmental conditions.

Quote
Convergent evolution describes the acquisition of the same biological trait in unrelated lineages.

The wing is a classic example of convergent evolution in action. Although their last common ancestor did not have wings, birds and bats do, and are capable of powered flight. The wings are similar in construction, due to the physical constraints imposed upon wing shape. Similarity can also be explained by shared ancestry, as evolution can only work with what is already there—thus wings were modified from limbs, as evidenced by their bone structure.[1]

Traits arising through convergent evolution are termed analogous structures, in contrast to homologous structures, which have a common origin. Bat and pterodactyl wings are an example of analogous structures, while the bat wing is homologous to human and other mammal forearms, sharing an ancestral state despite serving different functions. Similarity in species of different ancestry which is the result of convergent evolution, is called homoplasy. The opposite of convergent evolution is divergent evolution, whereby related species evolve different traits. On a molecular level, this can happen due to random mutation unrelated to adaptive changes; see long branch attraction. Convergent evolution is similar to, but distinguishable from, the phenomena of evolutionary relay and parallel evolution. Evolutionary relay describes how independent species acquire similar characteristics through their evolution in similar ecosystems, at different times: for example the dorsal fins of extinct ichthyosaurs and sharks. Parallel evolution occurs when two independent species evolve together at the same time in the same ecospace and acquire similar characteristics—for instance extinct browsing-horses and paleotheres. (from Wikipedia, "Convergent evolution"
.
Now I add something. The different forms of life developped under different environmental conditions (well, if the theory of evolution is correct, of course). Creatures adapted to water have developped certain characteristics, the earthly animals have developped some others, and birds even others. What strikes our knowledge is that every environment has developped thousands of species, nevertheless all possible combinations orbit around a limited list of evolutionary solution. For example: insects, pterodactyls, bats and birds have developped wings which are entirely different in nature, but whose mechanics are variations of the same "technology", so to say. Flippers for fish and cetaceous on one side and tentacles for octopuses on the other appear very different, yet they are developped following the same mechanics: moving water behind to proceed forward, naturally using a principle of physics.
So, on one side we could say that evolution is right in defining environmental conditions as factors of adaptation. Maybe, the only thing that evolution can't explain is the incredible FANTASY of evolution, i.e. the unbelievable number of variations that "nature" (and thus God) has brought in existence in the world. That's what makes creationists and intelligent design theorists see the hand of God directly at work in life creation more then in a deistic vision of a world initiated by God and programmed to evolve on its own.

Maybe this would answer to HIS question, I dunno. If not, then I'm wrong in the exegesis of jnorm888, so forget whatever I wrote LOL

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1508 on: October 09, 2009, 03:16:22 PM »

Maybe, the only thing that evolution can't explain is the incredible FANTASY of evolution, i.e. the unbelievable number of variations that "nature" (and thus God) has brought in existence in the world.
That's where mutations come in.
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.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1509 on: October 09, 2009, 03:21:40 PM »

You see mutations, we see creativity. LOL
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,438


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #1510 on: October 09, 2009, 03:24:54 PM »

Dear Alex,

If convergent evolution is what you're explaining, perhaps you're right.  I don't know.  I heard in a documentary once a parallel lineage of the evolution of fish in two different geographical regions but having similar environments in their area that turn out to be the same species.  This might indicate a "predictive" nature of evolution.  But we don't know anything of that sort yet, or at least I don't know any well-developed theory on that position yet, as I believe it's only hypothetical now.  We still have to consider predator/prey relationships, parasite/host relationships, mutations, weather changes, migrations, etc., which make prediction a very tedious calculation if anything.  Nevertheless, the driving force of evolution, which is mutations, can be measured alone, and that at least we know that we in constant mode of changing.  When different environments come along however, all of a sudden, these mutation rates start increasing.

I think one of the greatest ways to study evolution is to study our own immune system, how our white blood cells constantly change their genetic information to try to fight new parasites they encounter.  This gives us an idea of how environment can be factored into the genetic changes these cells make.  So T-cell and B-cell changes through mutations is God's way of allowing nature to be "creative."
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 03:26:15 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1511 on: October 09, 2009, 03:49:16 PM »

Dear Alex,

If convergent evolution is what you're explaining, perhaps you're right.  I don't know.  I heard in a documentary once a parallel lineage of the evolution of fish in two different geographical regions but having similar environments in their area that turn out to be the same species.  This might indicate a "predictive" nature of evolution.  But we don't know anything of that sort yet, or at least I don't know any well-developed theory on that position yet, as I believe it's only hypothetical now.  We still have to consider predator/prey relationships, parasite/host relationships, mutations, weather changes, migrations, etc., which make prediction a very tedious calculation if anything.  Nevertheless, the driving force of evolution, which is mutations, can be measured alone, and that at least we know that we in constant mode of changing.  When different environments come along however, all of a sudden, these mutation rates start increasing.

I think one of the greatest ways to study evolution is to study our own immune system, how our white blood cells constantly change their genetic information to try to fight new parasites they encounter.  This gives us an idea of how environment can be factored into the genetic changes these cells make.  So T-cell and B-cell changes through mutations is God's way of allowing nature to be "creative."

Some elements of convergent evolution - once supposed that evolution is real, since I think I'm not sure of it and I won't impose anybody that theory as I wouldn't impose creationism, btw - are clearly admissible because they can't be justified in another way. The fact that two species have adopted a common solution despite they're living in different areas of the world and despite their most recent common ancestor didn't have the same characteristic is really interesting.
For example, since all birds are supposed to have evolved from proto-birds some 150 mln years ago, it is natural and correct to explain this through their common ancestor Archaeopterix (even if this paternity is nowadays disputed). What strikes is that pterodactyls, which were not birds, have the first common ancestor with birds in wing-less dinosaurs of the Triassic period... in other words, birds and pterodactlys have adopted many characteristics of flight similar to each other but independently. There are in fact flying insects (e.g. butterflies), reptiles (pterosaurs), birds (pidgeons) and mammals (bats), animals which "invented" wings working with similar techniques because they responded to the same necessity (flight) but which developped in particular manner because of the particular nature of the animals themselves. Even in this case, though, while bird and insect wings are very particular, it must be said that bats and pterosaurs have almost identical wings, really amazing! The same can be said of flippers, which have been adopted in similar forms by fish and cetacei, even if the latter were mammals which, according to the opinion of scientists, came back from the dry land to the sea after million years of terrestrial life.

Everything in this phenomenon makes God's creative power show up in majesty, whatever you might understand by that "creative power". If God programmed DNA to evolve into a variety of animals, he created the best self-generating program of all time!

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,438


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #1512 on: October 09, 2009, 05:48:50 PM »

Quote
Everything in this phenomenon makes God's creative power show up in majesty, whatever you might understand by that "creative power". If God programmed DNA to evolve into a variety of animals, he created the best self-generating program of all time!

I'm glad we seem to be reaching some sort of understanding.  You're coming very close to what I believe in  Wink
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1513 on: October 09, 2009, 07:38:08 PM »

The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
But why must we define science as something secular, oppose it to the "sacred" content of the Church, and thereby justify our efforts to dismiss the findings of scientific observation altogether?

I didn't and don't define science as "secular." I am careful to make a distinction between legitimate science and secular science. Secular science is capable of ascertaining truth about the laws and principles of creation; but when it arrogates to itself the sole authority to interpret and discover truth about the natural world, then it operates essentially like the leaders of a cult (i.e. the secular scientists are the "experts," and the rest of us ignorant sheep must blindly agree with whatever they tell us).

There is no contradiction between legitimate science and Christian Truth; there is often contradiction between pseudo-science and Christian truth. I define "pseudo-science" as that which operates from an atheistic presuppostion.

Selam

"Atheistic presupposition." What about the presupposition that acknowledging the role of evolution in biological and other natural processes must necessarily be atheistic?

Theistic evolution is the most untenable position out of the three posssibilities of a) Creation/Intelligent Design, b) Atheistic Evolution, c) Theistic Evolution. This is because the ostensible evidence for macro evolution only has merit within the framework of atheism. To allow for the existence of God is to allow for the possibility of an alternative to macro evolution. Therefore, in the light of a competing theory, the proposed evidence for the theory of Darwinian evolution is found to be sorely lacking.

None of a, b or c are scientific positions. a) is particularly not science because it is based on an hypothesis that cannot be falsified. Whether the universe was created by the Judaic God, little green men in spaceships or the flying spaghetti monster cannot not be proved or disproved, thereby making creationist or id claims definitely not viable science. That anyone believes in an intelligent designer is theology/philosophy not science. Both b and c are positions that are held by individuals within or without the scientific community. "Atheist" and "theist" are not scientific stands.

Quote
Theistic evolution is a nice sounding compromise, but it is roundly rejected by leading proponents of macro evolution within the scientific community. Only by assuming an atheistic presupposition will their Darwinian theory have a chance of holding up in the light of intense scrutiny.

Whatever these unnamed leading proponents reject, scientists who accept theistic evolution would disagree with them.   

Quote
Christians are free to believe in theistic evolution if they want to. But it is a scientifically naive and ignorant position to hold.

The only scientifically naive and ignorant stand I can perceive is that one would imagine that science is concerned with investigating God rather than investigating nature. Individiual scientists might have axes to grind, and all are free to form their own opinions about God; whether they come down on the side of theism or atheism. The conclusions they come to in that regard having nothing to do with science.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 07:40:21 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1514 on: October 09, 2009, 07:44:24 PM »

You see mutations, we see creativity. LOL

Are they mutally exclusive?
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1515 on: October 09, 2009, 07:47:43 PM »



Everything in this phenomenon makes God's creative power show up in majesty, whatever you might understand by that "creative power". If God programmed DNA to evolve into a variety of animals, he created the best self-generating program of all time!

In Christ,   Alex

Therefore, mutation and creativity might not be mutally exclusive?
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 07:48:30 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,291


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1516 on: October 09, 2009, 08:01:09 PM »

Now I have a little question for you, brother...
you wrote in a previous post that the Ethiopian Orthodox say that the world was created 7000 years ago, due to the chronology of some of your Ethiopian-specific books (as the Book of Jubilees), so I wonder: which OT chronology does your Book of Genesis contain? Is it like the LXX (which puts creation further in the past) or as in the Massoretic Text (which would agree with Jubilees)? does your Genesis version list Cainan, son of Arphacsad and father of Selah, as the LXX, Jubilees and st. Luke do, or is he omitted? I know this risks to go a little bit off topic, but the matter of genealogies has always been interesting in my personal studies on the textual history of the Scriptures.

In Christ,   Alex

I must confess my ignorance about the details of these things. I know that someone posted an in depth explanation on this elsewhere (I think it was HaielAmanuel, AmdeTsion, or Hiywot). I'll try to find it if I can, and get back to you.

Selam
Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,291


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1517 on: October 09, 2009, 08:07:57 PM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.

Clarification please?

If you are making fun of me, at least let me know why. Huh
Ukiemeister asked you for proof of the assertions you made, and you offered nothing in reply but mere restatements of your arguments and more assertions without proof.  I'm sorry, but when you make assertions in a debate such as this, you need to be prepared to back up your statements with citations from outside sources, not just pass us off to some vague, "ask the scientific community yourself, and you'll find that my words are accurate."  You did not engage any of the specific points Ukiemeister brought up; therefore, he's quite justified in complaining in a roundabout way that you didn't read his post.

Again, the burden of proof is not on me. I won't allow the macro evolutionists to bias the debate by assuming they have nothing to prove and I do.

Again, you avoid the arguments I have previously stated and levy your own assertions.

Selam
Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,291


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1518 on: October 09, 2009, 08:13:24 PM »

Oh yes, the "scientific community."  I don't know which "scientific community" Gebre is referring to, but where I am from, Gebre's "scientific community" is either really a "philosophical community" or non-existent.

I have clarified his earlier by explaining that what is defined as the "scientific community" in our society is secular science.

Selam 
Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,438


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #1519 on: October 09, 2009, 08:15:17 PM »

Oh yes, the "scientific community."  I don't know which "scientific community" Gebre is referring to, but where I am from, Gebre's "scientific community" is either really a "philosophical community" or non-existent.

I have clarified his earlier by explaining that what is defined as the "scientific community" in our society is secular science.

Selam 

Again, either you met with "secular" philosophers or it is just a figment of your imagination.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,291


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1520 on: October 09, 2009, 08:20:58 PM »

As I stated above, legitimate science is based on the rigid criteria of the scientific method.

Unfortunately, modern explorers of science, both scientists (A.F. Chalmers - a physicist) and philosophers (K. Popper, T. Kuhn, I. Lakatos, P. Feyerabend and other) arrive to the conclusion that the "scientific method" as a universal set of rules simply does not exist. See A.F. Chalmers, "What Is This Thing Called Science?", Hackett Publishing Co., 1999 (3rd ed.), ISBN ISBN: 0-87220-452-9.

I know that Popper was a strong critic of logical positivism. But doesn't science nevertheless attempt to adhere to the scientific method as the most objective basis of testing a theory? Obviously though, as with the theory of Darwinian evolution, the scientific method is sometimes abandoned (or at least muchy less rigidly adhered to) because it poses a threat to the theory.

Is there any set of universal rules apart from the scientific method that science uses today? I'm not a scientist, so I don't know.

Selam  
Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,291


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1521 on: October 09, 2009, 08:29:29 PM »

The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
But why must we define science as something secular, oppose it to the "sacred" content of the Church, and thereby justify our efforts to dismiss the findings of scientific observation altogether?

I didn't and don't define science as "secular." I am careful to make a distinction between legitimate science and secular science. Secular science is capable of ascertaining truth about the laws and principles of creation; but when it arrogates to itself the sole authority to interpret and discover truth about the natural world, then it operates essentially like the leaders of a cult (i.e. the secular scientists are the "experts," and the rest of us ignorant sheep must blindly agree with whatever they tell us).

There is no contradiction between legitimate science and Christian Truth; there is often contradiction between pseudo-science and Christian truth. I define "pseudo-science" as that which operates from an atheistic presuppostion.

Selam

"Atheistic presupposition." What about the presupposition that acknowledging the role of evolution in biological and other natural processes must necessarily be atheistic?

Theistic evolution is the most untenable position out of the three posssibilities of a) Creation/Intelligent Design, b) Atheistic Evolution, c) Theistic Evolution. This is because the ostensible evidence for macro evolution only has merit within the framework of atheism. To allow for the existence of God is to allow for the possibility of an alternative to macro evolution. Therefore, in the light of a competing theory, the proposed evidence for the theory of Darwinian evolution is found to be sorely lacking.

None of a, b or c are scientific positions. a) is particularly not science because it is based on an hypothesis that cannot be falsified. Whether the universe was created by the Judaic God, little green men in spaceships or the flying spaghetti monster cannot not be proved or disproved, thereby making creationist or id claims definitely not viable science. That anyone believes in an intelligent designer is theology/philosophy not science. Both b and c are positions that are held by individuals within or without the scientific community. "Atheist" and "theist" are not scientific stands.

Quote
Theistic evolution is a nice sounding compromise, but it is roundly rejected by leading proponents of macro evolution within the scientific community. Only by assuming an atheistic presupposition will their Darwinian theory have a chance of holding up in the light of intense scrutiny.

Whatever these unnamed leading proponents reject, scientists who accept theistic evolution would disagree with them.   

Quote
Christians are free to believe in theistic evolution if they want to. But it is a scientifically naive and ignorant position to hold.

The only scientifically naive and ignorant stand I can perceive is that one would imagine that science is concerned with investigating God rather than investigating nature. Individiual scientists might have axes to grind, and all are free to form their own opinions about God; whether they come down on the side of theism or atheism. The conclusions they come to in that regard having nothing to do with science.


Dear Riddikulus,

Just a few points here:

1. I didn't say that I was talking about "scientific positions." I said that out of three possibilities, theistic evolution is the most untenable position. Theories themselves aren't necessarily science; the process of testing and verifying theories is science.

2. I'd be very interested for you or anyone else to provide me with a list of prominent scientists who are theistic evolutionists that have real credibility in the scientific community. 

3. I have never even come close to saying that science should be concerned with investigating God rather than nature.

Selam
Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,291


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1522 on: October 09, 2009, 08:34:13 PM »

Oh yes, the "scientific community."  I don't know which "scientific community" Gebre is referring to, but where I am from, Gebre's "scientific community" is either really a "philosophical community" or non-existent.

I have clarified his earlier by explaining that what is defined as the "scientific community" in our society is secular science.

Selam 

Again, either you met with "secular" philosophers or it is just a figment of your imagination.

As I said above to Riddikulus, provide me with a list of prominent scientists who are respected in the scientific community that believe in theistic evolution, or who operate from a theistic presupposition.

selam
Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,291


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1523 on: October 09, 2009, 08:37:53 PM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.

Clarification please?

If you are making fun of me, at least let me know why. Huh

Forgive me, but I really don't have time to read through 32 pages of this debate. As I've stated earlier, I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith. I have also pointed out the logical doubts I have about macro evolution, as well as the moral problems that the theory produces. But no one has addressed these things; so I really must move on now unless my points are fairly addressed. I'm not trying to be rude. Free will means feedom of belief, so believe whatever you want. You all are still my brothers and sisters. Smiley



Selam

Of course, Gebre.  We are your brothers and sisters in Satanic deception.

May my brothers and sisters in rational ignorance also be blessed.

Dear Brother,

These kinds of comments are really not productive, either to the discussion at hand or to Christian charity and brotherhood.

Selam
Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1524 on: October 09, 2009, 09:10:53 PM »

The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
But why must we define science as something secular, oppose it to the "sacred" content of the Church, and thereby justify our efforts to dismiss the findings of scientific observation altogether?

I didn't and don't define science as "secular." I am careful to make a distinction between legitimate science and secular science. Secular science is capable of ascertaining truth about the laws and principles of creation; but when it arrogates to itself the sole authority to interpret and discover truth about the natural world, then it operates essentially like the leaders of a cult (i.e. the secular scientists are the "experts," and the rest of us ignorant sheep must blindly agree with whatever they tell us).

There is no contradiction between legitimate science and Christian Truth; there is often contradiction between pseudo-science and Christian truth. I define "pseudo-science" as that which operates from an atheistic presuppostion.

Selam

"Atheistic presupposition." What about the presupposition that acknowledging the role of evolution in biological and other natural processes must necessarily be atheistic?

Theistic evolution is the most untenable position out of the three posssibilities of a) Creation/Intelligent Design, b) Atheistic Evolution, c) Theistic Evolution. This is because the ostensible evidence for macro evolution only has merit within the framework of atheism. To allow for the existence of God is to allow for the possibility of an alternative to macro evolution. Therefore, in the light of a competing theory, the proposed evidence for the theory of Darwinian evolution is found to be sorely lacking.

None of a, b or c are scientific positions. a) is particularly not science because it is based on an hypothesis that cannot be falsified. Whether the universe was created by the Judaic God, little green men in spaceships or the flying spaghetti monster cannot not be proved or disproved, thereby making creationist or id claims definitely not viable science. That anyone believes in an intelligent designer is theology/philosophy not science. Both b and c are positions that are held by individuals within or without the scientific community. "Atheist" and "theist" are not scientific stands.

Quote
Theistic evolution is a nice sounding compromise, but it is roundly rejected by leading proponents of macro evolution within the scientific community. Only by assuming an atheistic presupposition will their Darwinian theory have a chance of holding up in the light of intense scrutiny.

Whatever these unnamed leading proponents reject, scientists who accept theistic evolution would disagree with them.   

Quote
Christians are free to believe in theistic evolution if they want to. But it is a scientifically naive and ignorant position to hold.

The only scientifically naive and ignorant stand I can perceive is that one would imagine that science is concerned with investigating God rather than investigating nature. Individiual scientists might have axes to grind, and all are free to form their own opinions about God; whether they come down on the side of theism or atheism. The conclusions they come to in that regard having nothing to do with science.


Dear Riddikulus,

Just a few points here:

1. I didn't say that I was talking about "scientific positions." I said that out of three possibilities, theistic evolution is the most untenable position. Theories themselves aren't necessarily science; the process of testing and verifying theories is science.

I fail to understand your point.

Quote
2. I'd be very interested for you or anyone else to provide me with a list of prominent scientists who are theistic evolutionists that have real credibility in the scientific community. 

Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, Denis Alexander, Alister McGrath, Simon Conway Morris to name a few off the top of my head. 

Quote
3. I have never even come close to saying that science should be concerned with investigating God rather than nature.

I am still not understanding your points regarding "atheistic evolution" and "theistic evolution". That could be, of course, because I haven't had my morning cuppa.  Wink



Fixed quote tag...  -PtA
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 10:51:01 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1525 on: October 09, 2009, 09:55:28 PM »

^^ oops. Sorry about not getting the quote thingy right.

Gebre,

From your comments, I surmise that you feel that the theory of Evolution is somehow affected by the tacking on of a qualifier like "atheistic" or "theistic", when in fact the theory of Evolution has nothing to say about God; is not in any way interested in expressing views about any diety whatsoever; and isn't the slightest bit moved by the personal beliefs - atheistic or theistic -of those who accept the theory as a valid explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 09:56:00 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #1526 on: October 09, 2009, 10:05:32 PM »

As I stated above, legitimate science is based on the rigid criteria of the scientific method.

Unfortunately, modern explorers of science, both scientists (A.F. Chalmers - a physicist) and philosophers (K. Popper, T. Kuhn, I. Lakatos, P. Feyerabend and other) arrive to the conclusion that the "scientific method" as a universal set of rules simply does not exist. See A.F. Chalmers, "What Is This Thing Called Science?", Hackett Publishing Co., 1999 (3rd ed.), ISBN ISBN: 0-87220-452-9.

I know that Popper was a strong critic of logical positivism. But doesn't science nevertheless attempt to adhere to the scientific method as the most objective basis of testing a theory? Obviously though, as with the theory of Darwinian evolution, the scientific method is sometimes abandoned (or at least muchy less rigidly adhered to) because it poses a threat to the theory.

Is there any set of universal rules apart from the scientific method that science uses today? I'm not a scientist, so I don't know.

Selam  

Popper tried to replace positivism (or inductionism) with what later was called "falcificationism," i.e. the idea that one can offer any statement, which does not necessarily come from direct observation and inductionist logic, and that this statement will hold until or unless it is falsified. Yet, in the 1950-s - 1960-s another philosopher, an American called Willard van Orman Quine, began to attack this idea, reviving an old thesis proposed in the 19th century by a Belgian chemist called Pierre Duhem, stating that if you do not want your hypothesis or theory to be falsified, you can always prevent it from being falsified by "shifting the blame" to an unlimited number of "auxillary assumptions" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis). To solve the "Duhem-Quine paradox," T.S. Kuhn offered a very radical alternative to both inductivism and falsificationism, known today as a theory of paradigm shift. On the other hand, Imre Lakatos (+1974) tried to defend Popper's falsificationism by offering a very peculiar theory of "partial falsificationism," beter known as the "theory of research programs" (I wrote about that in a previous post in the "Science changes again" thread). Lakatos was especially concerned by the apparent lack of objective criteria of "progress" in Kuhn's vision of science. But his "research programs" triggered a wave of criticism for exactly the same reason, i.e. his attempts to explain, which research programs are more "progressive" (and also, just what is the difference between science and pseudo-science), were very far from convincing. The current trend in philosophy of science is, according to A.F. Chalmers, that there are very many different "scientific methods," each applied with bigger or smaller degree of productivity in this or that field of exploration of nature.
Logged

Love never fails.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,221


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1527 on: October 09, 2009, 10:43:30 PM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.

Clarification please?

If you are making fun of me, at least let me know why. Huh
Ukiemeister asked you for proof of the assertions you made, and you offered nothing in reply but mere restatements of your arguments and more assertions without proof.  I'm sorry, but when you make assertions in a debate such as this, you need to be prepared to back up your statements with citations from outside sources, not just pass us off to some vague, "ask the scientific community yourself, and you'll find that my words are accurate."  You did not engage any of the specific points Ukiemeister brought up; therefore, he's quite justified in complaining in a roundabout way that you didn't read his post.

Again, the burden of proof is not on me. I won't allow the macro evolutionists to bias the debate by assuming they have nothing to prove and I do.
But YOU have made a number of assertions on THIS thread.  The burden of proof is on YOU to defend the assertions YOU have made HERE.  To wit, those assertions are as follows:
  • Theistic evolution is the least tenable of the three competing theories:  theistic evolution, creation/intelligent design, and atheistic evolution.
  • The evidence for macro evolution has merit only within an atheistic framework.
  • Theistic evolution is a scientifically naïve and ignorant position to hold.
For these assertions that YOU have made on THIS thread, YOU and only YOU bear the burden of proof, not the so-called advocates of "macro evolution".

Again, you avoid the arguments I have previously stated and levy your own assertions.
No, I haven't avoided your arguments; rather, I've sought to show the shoddy logic made present in your arguments.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 10:43:58 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1528 on: October 09, 2009, 10:57:23 PM »

But YOU have made a number of assertions on THIS thread.  The burden of proof is on YOU to defend the assertions YOU have made HERE.  To wit, those assertions are as follows:
  • Theistic evolution is the least tenable of the three competing theories:  theistic evolution, creation/intelligent design, and atheistic evolution.
  • The evidence for macro evolution has merit only within an atheistic framework.
  • Theistic evolution is a scientifically naïve and ignorant position to hold.
For these assertions that YOU have made on THIS thread, YOU and only YOU bear the burden of proof, not the so-called advocates of "macro evolution".

Again, you avoid the arguments I have previously stated and levy your own assertions.
No, I haven't avoided your arguments; rather, I've sought to show the shoddy logic made present in your arguments.

Opps, again. Sorry, I think I might have gone off on a little tangent. Huh I somehow misread - or something - that Gebre was referring to philosophical theories and not the theory of Evolution per se. In future, I will try to remember to have breakfast before posting.  Embarrassed

edited to fix quote thingies!



Fixed quote tags...  -PtA
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 11:06:54 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,291


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1529 on: October 09, 2009, 11:25:33 PM »

^^ oops. Sorry about not getting the quote thingy right.

Gebre,

From your comments, I surmise that you feel that the theory of Evolution is somehow affected by the tacking on of a qualifier like "atheistic" or "theistic", when in fact the theory of Evolution has nothing to say about God; is not in any way interested in expressing views about any diety whatsoever; and isn't the slightest bit moved by the personal beliefs - atheistic or theistic -of those who accept the theory as a valid explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

I respectfully disagree with you. As I have pointed out many times, the ostensible evidence for the theory of evolution only has validity within an atheistic presupposition. In other words, since the existence of God is denied prima facie, then there is no other possible explanation for the existence of humanity besides evolution. To allow for the possibility of intelligent design immediately undermines the evidence for evolution, and thus the evolutionists must cling to an atheistic presupposition. Certainly there may be theistic evolutionists sparsely scattered amongst the scientific community (BTW, thanks for providing the names of a few of them), but as I said, they are not taken seriously by the majority of evolutionists.

Selam   

Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   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 0.232 seconds with 75 queries.