Poll

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

Yes
66 (16.1%)
No
158 (38.5%)
both metaphorically and literally
186 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 410

Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 1392754 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 36,109
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5805 on: June 06, 2015, 11:16:18 AM »
There are many disagreements about how Science should be done, what methods used, its purpose, what conclusions we can draw, what conclusions we should draw, whether we can ever be certain of something, what its limits are or should be, how and to what extent it interacts and informs other areas of thought/investigation, how open the theory and processes are to modification, etc.

wiki gives an overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

a book suggested by a college science professor who used to post here:

What Is This Thing Called Science?, by Alan F. Chalmers

and I found this book to be a good companion text (as it was intended to be):

Science And Its Fabrication, by Alan Chalmers
« Last Edit: June 06, 2015, 11:19:08 AM by Justin Kissel »

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,997
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5806 on: June 06, 2015, 02:57:21 PM »
I take a nuance on this philosophy of science.  We assume a spirit of consistency among all material phenomenon.  We cannot measure "consistency". To atheists, consistency is merely the material laws of science which can be mathematically expressed.  For me, is the language and glory of God.  For one to even speak of philosophy of anything proves to us we study the material world at a "supra-material" level, for lack of a better word.  At that point, this is when the spiritual becomes obvious to me.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2015, 02:57:52 PM by minasoliman »
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.

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,156
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5807 on: June 09, 2015, 08:32:43 AM »
There are many disagreements about how Science should be done, what methods used, its purpose, what conclusions we can draw, what conclusions we should draw, whether we can ever be certain of something, what its limits are or should be, how and to what extent it interacts and informs other areas of thought/investigation, how open the theory and processes are to modification, etc.

Most of the questions you're asking aren't scientific questions, but epistemology, or the philosophy of science (as you cited), or the political control of science. They're all valid questions. They just can't be answered by science.

Even the ones that seem to pertain to the profession of science are not really scientific questions, but something like best practices, or other rules professionals in a domain might impose upon themselves for all sorts of reasons (uniformity, making review easier, comes to mind).

As to my perspective, the validity and applicability of methodological naturals cannot be questioned by science because it is science.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 08:35:45 AM by nothing »
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline ilyazhito

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,031
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5808 on: June 09, 2015, 05:27:28 PM »
About the poll at the beginning, how is it possible to believe in the Old Testament both metaphorically and literally. It seems that both beliefs exclude each other, but it might also depend on how one defines "days". So how does that work?

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 36,109
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5809 on: June 09, 2015, 06:33:25 PM »
About the poll at the beginning, how is it possible to believe in the Old Testament both metaphorically and literally. It seems that both beliefs exclude each other, but it might also depend on how one defines "days". So how does that work?

I have yet to come across a Father who didn't take it both 'metaphorically' and 'literally' (if we are going to combine a dozen different interpretive approaches or more down into two options), but then I am assuming that 'the account of Genesis' means the first 3-4 chapters, and not any particular verse or word that can be isolated and haggled over in an attempt to define. To use an example I've mentioned before--the 'garments of skin.' They could be literal clothes to cover them since they now had changing ideas about certain parts on the other person; they could be literal coverings (skin) to prepare them for a life of hardship/problems they wouldn't have faced in Eden; they could be a symbol of things that had come upon humanity when they were expelled from Eden (pooping, sex, death, drugs, rock n roll): the good, the bad, or the good and bad; it could be taken as foreshadowing the coming of Christ ("in the flesh"); and so on. And most of the literal interpretations have non-literal levels of communication/insight, and vice versa.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 06:34:26 PM by Justin Kissel »

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5810 on: August 30, 2015, 06:19:34 PM »
We assume a spirit of consistency among all material phenomenon.
That's biggest problem of today's scientism. In real science one cannot assume anything. Today's scientism takes assumption of "everything should be explained within materialistic framework" and proclaims this assumption for axiom. Now, within this context if you encounter an evidence (or a phenomenon or whatever) that absolutely cannot be explained within materialistic framework then you don't have much choices. You can either totally deny existence of this phenomenon that are real (examples of which are multiple in today's scientism) or give most ridiculous explanation based on materialism (examples of which are also many). This materialistic restrictions on our world is not going to lead any further. When we assume that everything can be explained by materialism it's just an assumption. Thus every true scientist should ask himself questions: Is my materialistic assumption true? Can i prove it that it is true? Did I prove it? If i did not prove it, then how true that  science i have learned could be? The reality is we have not proven materialistic worldwide to be true. This approach is absolutely restrictive and can't create real science.

Same is true for assuming consistency among all material phenomenon. Did we prove it? What if this assumption is false?

We have studied the world and all we find is wonders. Any normal logic dictates us that if we want to study this amazing world we have to be open to any explanation that would lead us to even more wonders. If materialistic explanation was enough it would have been accepted. But not only are these materialistic explanations not enough but also they many times are silly and we clearly need something beyond materialism. In this i see atheism as a worst religion who has put up this dogma of "nothing beyond materialism exists" and has caught millions of minds. Funny thing is this same conscious mind who accepts this dogma can't explain its own consciousness (something most real for every conscious mind), can't explain why it is conscious of its own existence or why it is conscious of its own feelings and so on. It is very clear that our consciousness is not materialistic and can't be.

All these bad scientism is characteristic feature of one of the theories of today's sientism called "Neo-Darwinism".

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,156
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5811 on: August 30, 2015, 06:37:17 PM »
Welcome back Ativan, glad you are posting again. I'll get back to you later tonight if I can to sharpen your points. I think we fundamentally agree, but how we get there is where differ.

More later, but I just want to make a preliminary remark in that all scientists conduct their research within a framework of natural causes with no attempts to appeal to the supernatural. That's why they must assume all causes are empirical and naturalistic.

The questions you are raising are philosophical, which isn't the concern for scientists. Science cannot understand itself.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2015, 06:37:45 PM by nothing »
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline seekeroftruth777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,135
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5812 on: August 30, 2015, 06:37:47 PM »
Just a quick question why would Orthodoxy conform their theology, Christology, Biblical views, etc. to the Scientific worldview? sorry but Modernism, Post Modernism, Moral Relativism Darwinism, Futurism, Atheism, Malthuism, Rationalism (and it flip sided twin brother Fundamentalism), Evolution, Survival of the fittest, Dialectic Materialism, Racial Eugenics and everything else related to Scientific Ideas and consensus that came out of the middle ages to the Enlightenment then to the counterculture up to even today has had a negative effect on the Western Churches just look the Anglicans/Episcopalians (how that Reason working out), the Lutherans, The Catholic Church, The Methodists, etc. do we want to go down that same road as the Western Churches? however I chose option #3 every Orthodox church I ever attended made it clear that Scripture a mixture or allegory, Literalism, Symbolism, History, and Metaphors and that it is the Church and not our own private interpretations that interprets scripture.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5813 on: August 30, 2015, 08:11:03 PM »
The biblical doctrine (see Psalm 93:1, 96:10) of geocentrism that was promulgated the RCC is clearly contradicted by empirical reality, and now the RCC has apologized for its persecution of Galileo, and it even has an astronomical laboratory.  Evolution, or more specifically common descent, is a similar instance of a conflict between the "Teachings of the Church" and reality.
Strictly speaking any motion is relative. Consequently saying that geocentrism is false statement of reality and heliocentrism is true is wrong in itself.

Quote
Evolution, or more specifically common descent, is a similar instance of a conflict between the "Teachings of the Church" and reality.
You have given a definition of scientific method from American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed. Base on this definition of science how is "Evolution, or more specifically common descent" reality? And what you mean in evolution and common descent?

Quote
The RCC and the mainline Protestants have accepted common descent as true, and I think that this is more productive than further defiance in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.
What RRC says does not matter. RRC is not a scientific entity. Neither is it Church of Christ but Church of evil. I'm talking about RRC itself and not ordinary Christians who are blinded by those clergy. At any rate, since you state there's overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution i doubt you understand Neo-Darwinism.

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 36,109
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5814 on: August 30, 2015, 08:31:48 PM »
Welcome back Ativan, glad you are posting again. I'll get back to you later tonight if I can to sharpen your points. I think we fundamentally agree, but how we get there is where differ.

More later, but I just want to make a preliminary remark in that all scientists conduct their research within a framework of natural causes with no attempts to appeal to the supernatural. That's why they must assume all causes are empirical and naturalistic.

The questions you are raising are philosophical, which isn't the concern for scientists. Science cannot understand itself.

I'm not sure I understand why you place such importance on separating philosophy and science, and calling attention to their separation. No science could be done without a thousand bricks of philosophy acting as a foundation. Perhaps half these bricks are beliefs and assumptions so common that we don't even think about them as philosophical, we just take them for granted without thinking of them at all. That science should work on curing cancer. Why? What if you believe as Christian scientists do? The overwhelming majority hold to a very different belief about such matters though, so that position is simply ushered right in and past the line and bouncer. Another is that we should try to test and confirm data. Why? For verification? Yet as journal articles multiply we end up with situations where there are a bazillion claims being made, and on a great many of them you can find conflicting data, competing hypotheses/ideas, and contradictory conclusions. So why not wait until we reach critical masses and then do experiments? As opposed to the 'publish or perish' system, where getting into some graduate programs takes into account if and how much you've published, getting tenure often makes a good publishing history a requirement, and so on? It's a philosophical position. The who do science and those who set the course of it prefer one method over all the other options. They prefer to let a bazillion articles be published in ten thousand journals, half of which might be completely fraud, and a large portion of the other half being largely useless or even harmful. Of course it's hard to change now--mid stream--but it's still a philosophical brick.

There are others that are perhaps still controversial among a larger group. Once the group reaches 'big enough to lobby the government, or bug us' status they usually can get some kind of acknowledgement. Animal rights, for example. Is it right to experiment on animals? Mammals? Rats vs. fish vs. cockroaches vs. chimpanzees? We can't use chimpanzees to test out new drugs to be used in death penalty cases? Why not? Well can we still kill single-celled organisms? Where is the line drawn, and why? Or another line of questioning: is it ok to do experiments that are not seriously harmful (death or vegetablizing), but not ones that will effectively end the life? Is it ok to do dangerous experiments on humans? If sometimes, when? Only if they are terminal? As long as they give their consent? Never, if it has a more than 10% chance of killing them? Who decides, and how? Is there a non-philosophical, scientific way to figure this stuff out? One of the common criticisms of sola scripture is that there is not table of contents included by God from the start. Well, is there a list of oks and not oks from the start with science? Does some non-philosophical experiment demonstrate why cadavers are now allowed to be used for all manner of scientific investigation, including (fittingly but morbidly) observations about the effects of weather patterns, wild animal involvement, and the like on dead human bodies, such as how fast they decompose in this or that condition.

Why spend billions on going to space? Searching for this and that? What direction? Why talk of humans going to Mars? What are the arguments between scientists about? Specifically the ones that are competing for the grants that make most of the experimenting feasible? There are arguments about which would yield the most data, which would give the most accurate results, and so on. But the great majority of them are straight up philosophy. Let's focus on mining random objects in the solar system because there's money in them there thingers. No, we should focus on learning how to keep one of them from slamming into earth and destroying the planet; in fact, we should be doing this urgently. Nah, the chances of that happening are miniscule; it is my opinion that the chances are so small that we should focus on other, more productive things instead, like how to protect astronauts from the negative effects of being in space. What? Humans shouldn't even be in space! And so on and so on, in just that one area.

Before, during and after science does science, it must also do philosophy. Or, scientists must know and do philosophy as a part of the scientific method, and it's in many cases more integral and foundational than the would-be factual, naturalistic, non-philosophical stuff. I don't know what you'll think of this, or if I have completely misunderstood your point. Anyway, I hope I didn't write this for nothing. Oh wait...   Har har, couldn't resist.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2015, 08:33:23 PM by Justin Kissel »

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5815 on: August 30, 2015, 09:13:17 PM »
Welcome back Ativan, glad you are posting again.
Thank you.

Quote
More later, but I just want to make a preliminary remark in that all scientists conduct their research within a framework of natural causes with no attempts to appeal to the supernatural. That's why they must assume all causes are empirical and naturalistic.
It's all right to assume natural causes for certain phenomena and work within this framework. But we have to understand that such assumption is very limited and can only lead to limited discoveries. If we want to assume this we have to know that many other questions will be unanswered and materialistic science should not be involved to research such questions. Materialistic theories of origin of universe, origin of life and its diversity and so on are impossible to come up with. In such cases science should restrict its search only to very limited area of reality.

Quote
The questions you are raising are philosophical, which isn't the concern for scientists. Science cannot understand itself.
I do not think that those questions are philosophical alone and does not pertain to science. If science is about the search of truth in reality then to whatever this search leads we should accept it. Let's assume that we are investigating a phenomenon which in no way can be explained by naturalistic explanation. What do we do next? Do we say, this phenomenon was an illusion? Do we say, let's wait for centuries and materialistic explanation will spring into existence? Or do we dispose our false assumption and try to go beyond it?

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,156
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5816 on: August 30, 2015, 09:48:12 PM »
@Ativan

Science isn't in search of truth and has nothing to say about it. So you have a confusion between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, which the later makes a truth claim that only natural causes exist which you and I both would reject, but I suspect for different reasons.

You misconstrue what I meant about the required assumption of scientists. Of course it's limited, that's the point. Scientists aren't concerned with truth, but only with useful predictions. That's it. Science isn't getting closer to some sort of "ultimate reality" here and really has no intention to do so.

So I think you have a misunderstanding between what science does and philosophy. The two should not be mixed, and when it does it becomes both bad science and bad philosophy.

EDIT: Just saw Justin's lengthy post, OK give me some time for a proper response.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2015, 09:56:06 PM by nothing »
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5817 on: August 30, 2015, 11:21:01 PM »
@Ativan

Science isn't in search of truth and has nothing to say about it...

Scientists aren't concerned with truth, but only with useful predictions. That's it. Science isn't getting closer to some sort of "ultimate reality" here and really has no intention to do so.
Basically, you are saying it does not matter what theories we have to explain observable phenomena as long as these theories makes useful predictions. Let's take very concrete example. I want to ask a question how life came into existence and what caused diversity of life. Are these questions scientific ones? If they are not then Neo-Darwinism is not science since it tries to answer questions beyond science. So, we have to assume that these questions are scientific ones since we have (or at least scientists claim they do) theories about it. Today's theory which claims to have answers to these questions is Neo-Darwinian theory. This theory claims that all life form arouse from common ancestor by random mutations and natural selection. Within the context what you have just said it does not really matter if diversity of life is caused by random mutations and natural selection as long as Neo-Darwinism makes useful predictions, am i right?

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,997
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5818 on: August 30, 2015, 11:49:38 PM »
Tbh...the posts are way too long to care anymore lol

I think I explained enough in this thread my reasons.  I don't appreciate it that I'm accused of believing in "scientism" though.  My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency. 
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.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,090
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5819 on: August 30, 2015, 11:54:54 PM »
Welcome back Ativan, glad you are posting again.

;)
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5820 on: August 31, 2015, 08:44:02 AM »
Tbh...the posts are way too long to care anymore lol

I think I explained enough in this thread my reasons.  I don't appreciate it that I'm accused of believing in "scientism" though.  My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency.
Don't worry, mina, I'm in the same camp you are. Except I am a Chalcedonian scientism follower.  :P
God bless!

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,156
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5821 on: September 01, 2015, 06:07:36 PM »
Welcome back Ativan, glad you are posting again. I'll get back to you later tonight if I can to sharpen your points. I think we fundamentally agree, but how we get there is where differ.

More later, but I just want to make a preliminary remark in that all scientists conduct their research within a framework of natural causes with no attempts to appeal to the supernatural. That's why they must assume all causes are empirical and naturalistic.

The questions you are raising are philosophical, which isn't the concern for scientists. Science cannot understand itself.

I'm not sure I understand why you place such importance on separating philosophy and science, and calling attention to their separation. No science could be done without a thousand bricks of philosophy acting as a foundation. Perhaps half these bricks are beliefs and assumptions so common that we don't even think about them as philosophical, we just take them for granted without thinking of them at all. That science should work on curing cancer. Why? What if you believe as Christian scientists do? The overwhelming majority hold to a very different belief about such matters though, so that position is simply ushered right in and past the line and bouncer. Another is that we should try to test and confirm data. Why? For verification? Yet as journal articles multiply we end up with situations where there are a bazillion claims being made, and on a great many of them you can find conflicting data, competing hypotheses/ideas, and contradictory conclusions. So why not wait until we reach critical masses and then do experiments? As opposed to the 'publish or perish' system, where getting into some graduate programs takes into account if and how much you've published, getting tenure often makes a good publishing history a requirement, and so on? It's a philosophical position. The who do science and those who set the course of it prefer one method over all the other options. They prefer to let a bazillion articles be published in ten thousand journals, half of which might be completely fraud, and a large portion of the other half being largely useless or even harmful. Of course it's hard to change now--mid stream--but it's still a philosophical brick.

There are others that are perhaps still controversial among a larger group. Once the group reaches 'big enough to lobby the government, or bug us' status they usually can get some kind of acknowledgement. Animal rights, for example. Is it right to experiment on animals? Mammals? Rats vs. fish vs. cockroaches vs. chimpanzees? We can't use chimpanzees to test out new drugs to be used in death penalty cases? Why not? Well can we still kill single-celled organisms? Where is the line drawn, and why? Or another line of questioning: is it ok to do experiments that are not seriously harmful (death or vegetablizing), but not ones that will effectively end the life? Is it ok to do dangerous experiments on humans? If sometimes, when? Only if they are terminal? As long as they give their consent? Never, if it has a more than 10% chance of killing them? Who decides, and how? Is there a non-philosophical, scientific way to figure this stuff out? One of the common criticisms of sola scripture is that there is not table of contents included by God from the start. Well, is there a list of oks and not oks from the start with science? Does some non-philosophical experiment demonstrate why cadavers are now allowed to be used for all manner of scientific investigation, including (fittingly but morbidly) observations about the effects of weather patterns, wild animal involvement, and the like on dead human bodies, such as how fast they decompose in this or that condition.

Why spend billions on going to space? Searching for this and that? What direction? Why talk of humans going to Mars? What are the arguments between scientists about? Specifically the ones that are competing for the grants that make most of the experimenting feasible? There are arguments about which would yield the most data, which would give the most accurate results, and so on. But the great majority of them are straight up philosophy. Let's focus on mining random objects in the solar system because there's money in them there thingers. No, we should focus on learning how to keep one of them from slamming into earth and destroying the planet; in fact, we should be doing this urgently. Nah, the chances of that happening are miniscule; it is my opinion that the chances are so small that we should focus on other, more productive things instead, like how to protect astronauts from the negative effects of being in space. What? Humans shouldn't even be in space! And so on and so on, in just that one area.

Before, during and after science does science, it must also do philosophy. Or, scientists must know and do philosophy as a part of the scientific method, and it's in many cases more integral and foundational than the would-be factual, naturalistic, non-philosophical stuff. I don't know what you'll think of this, or if I have completely misunderstood your point. Anyway, I hope I didn't write this for nothing. Oh wait...   Har har, couldn't resist.
I think this confirms my position, rather than opposes it.

The questions you raise aren't scientific and can't be answered by science. All science can do is apply methodological naturalism to facts that need explaining. It can't get outside that system and ask whether it should do so in any particular case or at any particular cost.

Those types of questions are answered the usual way: politics, morality, philosophy. These cannot limit themselves to methodological naturalism and be a valid inquiry.

So you seem to be saying that science is embedded in a nonscientific system of power and discourse. Yes, but that embeddedness is exactly what science can't inquire into.
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5822 on: September 01, 2015, 06:31:16 PM »
Nothing

Is the question of "life's origin and diversity" a scientific question or not?

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5823 on: September 01, 2015, 06:39:02 PM »
I don't appreciate it that I'm accused of believing in "scientism" though.  My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency.
Do you know Logos? Have had revelation about this? How did you get to that conclusion? If you coming from Orthodox viewpoint then you are wrong. If you coming from science viewpoint than you you are wrong again.

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,156
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5824 on: September 01, 2015, 06:46:16 PM »
Basically, you are saying it does not matter what theories we have to explain observable phenomena as long as these theories makes useful predictions. Let's take very concrete example. I want to ask a question how life came into existence and what caused diversity of life. Are these questions scientific ones? If they are not then Neo-Darwinism is not science since it tries to answer questions beyond science. So, we have to assume that these questions are scientific ones since we have (or at least scientists claim they do) theories about it. Today's theory which claims to have answers to these questions is Neo-Darwinian theory. This theory claims that all life form arouse from common ancestor by random mutations and natural selection. Within the context what you have just said it does not really matter if diversity of life is caused by random mutations and natural selection as long as Neo-Darwinism makes useful predictions, am i right?
OK hold on for a second.

You need to understand first and foremost that science is a method. All it does is look for the causes of things that which call for an explanation in the material universe. It does by not consult clerics, or oralces, or anything else to explain.

There is no denying that science has worked remarkably well in what it does, that is make useful predictions.

Because I must repeat myself once more, science is limited only in finding explanations within the material world. So, ativan, relax and rejoice! You shouldn't feel threatened at all by science that's going to erode the ground of your faith. Science is not the least concerned about exploring the mysteries of God. That's why we have priests and theologians, but I don't expect them to have the skill to fill my dental caries or engineer stable bridges.

Now as to your query regarding the diversity of organic life, well that's the thing Ativan, we never lacked explanations. We have plenty of mythic and folk accounts to explain the diversity, but those were not useful predictions. So that is why we use science, because we can produce better crops. And the theory of evolution does give us useful predictions above any other explanation that we have because it lies in methodological naturalism.

And you are also not using the word "random" in how its understood in biology. It basically means that the causes of mutations are itself natural and lack directional properties. So there was nobody planning or guiding any of this. There is no teleology to account for it. And why they occur are due to a plethora of well researched reasons that are able to measure it at a certain rate. Which that rate, by the way, is consistent with how its determined that the theory of evolution is valid. So we can verify the predictions that concords with the theory.

That doesn't mean we can't come across an observable fact that requires an explanation, like a human skull found inside of a T-Rex skeleton, which might put the validity of the theory in jeopardy. I won't hold my breath on that ever happening.

Anyway, science is called upon to explain facts. The theory of evolution does it very nicely and its doing it exactly as its supposed to do, that is an explanation of the factual organic forms we experience.

There simply is no other competing theory that comes close, and is pretty much as valid as quantum theory.

If you can provide us with a single observable fact that upends the entire theory, I will make sure I get you nominated for a Nobel. But, again, not holding my breath. The theory has been tested for a very long time now and we haven't uncovered a single fact that has been able to contradict it. Not a single one. Every single scientific discovery after Darwin has completely supported it. And really if it wasn't a valid theory, we would have plenty of observable facts to demonstrate it but we don't and my guess is we never will.
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,997
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5825 on: September 01, 2015, 06:49:56 PM »
I don't appreciate it that I'm accused of believing in "scientism" though.  My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency.
Do you know Logos?

Yes, but not as much as He knows me.  Every Sunday I get to know the Logos even more through His life giving body and blood.
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.

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,156
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5826 on: September 01, 2015, 06:59:23 PM »
Nothing

Is the question of "life's origin and diversity" a scientific question or not?
I pretty much answered this indirectly in my post above, if you feel I didn't I suppose I could elaborate further..

You know ativan, evolutionary biology doesn't actually attempt to explain the origin of life, just what occurred after that which came into being.

That's not to say it doesn't have a naturalistic theory on the origins, but even biologists admit is pretty rough. We just don't enough data during that period in history to where a powerful explanatory theory could emerge.

Just look at the attempts to explain dark energy or hell even gravity.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2015, 07:02:16 PM by nothing »
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,156
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5827 on: September 01, 2015, 07:05:21 PM »
Tbh...the posts are way too long to care anymore lol

I think I explained enough in this thread my reasons.  I don't appreciate it that I'm accused of believing in "scientism" though.  My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency.
I forget, aren't you a biologist or something? Or was that pharmacy?
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,997
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5828 on: September 01, 2015, 07:31:01 PM »
I do have a bachelors in biology.  Then I went on for medicine.
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.

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,156
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5829 on: September 01, 2015, 07:39:12 PM »
I do have a bachelors in biology.  Then I went on for medicine.
Well Ativan look no further than anything minasoliman has to say. I'm certainly less than a layman here.
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,997
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5830 on: September 01, 2015, 07:43:32 PM »
I'm not sure I'll be able to see straight after Ativan :P
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.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5831 on: September 02, 2015, 02:43:32 AM »
Nothing

Is the question of "life's origin and diversity" a scientific question or not?
I pretty much answered this indirectly in my post above, if you feel I didn't I suppose I could elaborate further..

You know ativan, evolutionary biology doesn't actually attempt to explain the origin of life, just what occurred after that which came into being.

That's not to say it doesn't have a naturalistic theory on the origins, but even biologists admit is pretty rough. We just don't enough data during that period in history to where a powerful explanatory theory could emerge.

Just look at the attempts to explain dark energy or hell even gravity.
That's why I asked question about both origin and diversity. Evolutionary theory tries to explain how diversity of life has arouse. So at least you agree that the question about origin of diversity of life is a scientific question. Why do I ask it? I'm actually trying to see how today's science relates to the point you've made. You said "Scientists aren't concerned with truth, but only with useful predictions". This is actually against evidence. When an evolutionary biologist claims diversity of life is the consequence of random genetic mutations and natural selection for him/her this is a fact, reality and not just some abstraction which makes useful predictions. They claim trueness of it. Same as true of many other scientific theories. When nuclear physicist claims of existence of atomic and subatomic particles for them this is not just a conceptual model but reality. The existence of electron for a physicist is reality. You can claim the science should follow your principle but that's not reality.

Quote
That's not to say it doesn't have a naturalistic theory on the origins, but even biologists admit is pretty rough. We just don't enough data during that period in history to where a powerful explanatory theory could emerge.
Allright. Let's assume that we don't have enough data about origin of life. Let's for a second think of some wild imaginary data which in the future could come handy to explain origin of life in naturalistic terms. Imagine you have freedom to chose such data which would support abiogenesis. At lease in theory what would be such data? What kind of data it would be? What type of data are we looking for? To make my question more clear I will give you an example. Standard theory of particle physics predicted the existence of Higgs boson. Physicists new what type of data they would look for to validate the existence of it. Whole experimental setup was directed towards this objective. At least you should be able to point to some theoretical findings in the future to validate abiogenesis. And my question is asking exactly that. In fact, there's nothing like it and never will be. Proponents of abiogenesis (which would be the only naturalistic explanation) have no clue what such data could be. This is a clear indication that abiogenesis is false theory in any its form.


Quote
You shouldn't feel threatened at all by science that's going to erode the ground of your faith.
Believe me, your statement is counterfactual. Science can never erode my faith today. In fact inability of science to explain many things and instead of explanation talking about fantastic stories brought me to faith.

Quote
There is no denying that science has worked remarkably well in what it does, that is make useful predictions.
I have no doubt in this. But that does not mean every theory explains facts well. For example, neo-Darwinian theory of evolution has most ridiculous explanation of the existent facts.

Quote
There simply is no other competing theory that comes close, and is pretty much as valid as quantum theory.
This is exactly the point i was making. Because you restricted explanation to naturalistic causes you think there's no competing explanation. In reality there is. Intelligent design (that life is creation of intelligence) is the only conclusion one can make when studying life.

Quote
And you are also not using the word "random" in how its understood in biology. It basically means that the causes of mutations are itself natural and lack directional properties. So there was nobody planning or guiding any of this. There is no teleology to account for it. And why they occur are due to a plethora of well researched reasons that are able to measure it at a certain rate. Which that rate, by the way, is consistent with how its determined that the theory of evolution is valid. So we can verify the predictions that concords with the theory.
I know exactly what "random" means. You make so much claims for Neo-Darwinism i hope you can support it. Firstly, random mutations should be randomly distributed in genome. It is known fact that mutations in genome are not randomly distributed. There are locations in the genome which allow high rates of mutations and there are locations which are very conserved. How can random mutations lead to such a distribution of mutations in genome? Even more, genes coding for immunoglobulins have regions that allow several magnitudes of order of mutation rates than can be seen even in mutational hostspots. These mutations happen in exact spots such that to create a gene which will code for a protein which exactly matches with an antigen towards which it is directed. At the same time constant regions of immunoglobulin genes have mechanisms to not allow mutations in these locations. How can you call this randomness (or something lacking direction) when it directly contradicts your theory?

Furthermore, we don't see objects in the nature that look-like man-made and is not man-made. Anytime we see refrigerators, radios, tvs, computers, cars and so on we know they were designed and created and did not arise out of random processes. We have not seen anything like it and we will not ever say these machines can be brought into existence by random and undirected events. Then why will you say cellular machines (and the whole life for that matter) which are much more complex can arise out of undirected and random event? Why will you not stay consistent (which you have made a principle in other cases) and in one case of intelligent peace of machinery you will claim its intelligent design and another case deny it? After all materials we use are composed of exactly same atoms and molecules that life is composed of. Then what is so special with life that undirected and random processes lead to ordered structures while no such thing happens with regards to human designed machines?

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5832 on: September 02, 2015, 02:57:47 AM »
My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency.
What about miracles then? Are miracles in the line of "a spirit of consistency among all material phenomenon".?

As i remember you have claimed that God has used evolution in Neo-Darwinian fashion or something in this line. Is that right?

Quote
I'm not sure I'll be able to see straight after Ativan :P
i like this :)

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5833 on: September 02, 2015, 02:59:46 AM »
If you can provide us with a single observable fact that upends the entire theory, I will make sure I get you nominated for a Nobel.
Single observable fact against neo-Darwinism: there's no observable fact that supports ne-Darwinism.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2015, 03:00:31 AM by ativan »

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,877
  • Excelsior
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5834 on: September 02, 2015, 08:51:54 AM »
Huh?

 :o
My only weakness is, well, never mind

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,156
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5835 on: September 02, 2015, 11:08:44 AM »
Huh?

 :o
Since I'm posting from phone, I have to keep this short.

ativan just has a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics such as theories, facts, science, truth, etc. I'll sort this all when I get the time.

He certainly is worth responding to and if I can help clear up the confusions he has, I hope that will allow him to see his views are rooted in folly.

I'm not trying to evangelize but I can't help to notice how ativan is using a particular style, it suggests there is something more problematic than the theory of evolution that's he real issue here. I just haven't determined what that is yet.
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,997
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5836 on: September 02, 2015, 12:04:09 PM »
My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency.
What about miracles then? Are miracles in the line of "a spirit of consistency among all material phenomenon".?

As i remember you have claimed that God has used evolution in Neo-Darwinian fashion or something in this line. Is that right?

Yes, that is correct.  Let's use one small part of science that I am sure you and I agree upon:  medicine or pharmacology (judging by your username, you might agree with the science of pharmacology?).  There is a consistency in the treatment of diseases and disorders based on a human being's biochemical, physical, and overall, physiological make-up.  We judge by the pattern of a patient's symptoms along with confirmation using our diagnostic tools what the patient has, and what treatments are available to alleviate, treat, or cure the patient's ailments.

Now, we have cancer for instance.  We have treatments for cancer, and we hope to find better treatments.  But let's say the cancer metastasized and there is only a month to live.  We have all the proof there is that there are mets.  But miraculously, 3 months go by, then 4 months, and when we check again, the mets are gone.  What happened?  Miracle?  Maybe.  Maybe God has His reasons to heal this patient of something impossible to heal.  Does that take away the consistency of the science of oncology?  No, it does not, and there is still hope in the future that we can tackle cancer scientifically, as God allows us to grow in this knowledge.

Same with any other science.  There is a consistency.  Do miracles happen?  Yes!  Are they part of God's consistent plan for all of us?  I think so, even if it does not seem consistent by scientific standards, yet by divine providence, I trust that a few "inconsistent" miracles here and there are part of God's consistency of which I have no way of understanding until the second coming.




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.

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,274
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5837 on: September 02, 2015, 01:12:14 PM »
Huh?

 :o
Since I'm posting from phone, I have to keep this short.

ativan just has a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics such as theories, facts, science, truth, etc. I'll sort this all when I get the time.

He certainly is worth responding to and if I can help clear up the confusions he has, I hope that will allow him to see his views are rooted in folly.

I'm not trying to evangelize but I can't help to notice how ativan is using a particular style, it suggests there is something more problematic than the theory of evolution that's he real issue here. I just haven't determined what that is yet.

I suggest that you start by going to the bottom of page 66 of this thread topic to around page 70. I posted seriously during this episode. There is another episode starting around page 96 to around page 106. This will get you up to speed.
"Mi tío es enfermo, pero la carretera es verde!" - old Chilean saying

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,156
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5838 on: September 02, 2015, 01:15:57 PM »
Huh?

 :o
Since I'm posting from phone, I have to keep this short.

ativan just has a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics such as theories, facts, science, truth, etc. I'll sort this all when I get the time.

He certainly is worth responding to and if I can help clear up the confusions he has, I hope that will allow him to see his views are rooted in folly.

I'm not trying to evangelize but I can't help to notice how ativan is using a particular style, it suggests there is something more problematic than the theory of evolution that's he real issue here. I just haven't determined what that is yet.

I suggest that you start by going to the bottom of page 66 of this thread topic to around page 70. I posted seriously during this episode. There is another episode starting around page 96 to around page 106. This will get you up to speed.
Thank you Opus, this is a lot to review and parse.
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,156
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5839 on: September 02, 2015, 09:34:49 PM »
You said "Scientists aren't concerned with truth, but only with useful predictions". This is actually against evidence.
 When an evolutionary biologist claims diversity of life is the consequence of random genetic mutations and natural selection for him/her this is a fact, reality and not just some abstraction which makes useful predictions. They claim trueness of it. Same as true of many other scientific theories. When nuclear physicist claims of existence of atomic and subatomic particles for them this is not just a conceptual model but reality. The existence of electron for a physicist is reality. You can claim the science should follow your principle but that's not reality.
See this is the problem, Ativan, you confuse scientists that embrace philosophical naturalism that pretends to be science when it's really not.

And there are people like yourself that hold to intelligent design, which is speculative philosophy, and call it science.

So you are both two sides of the same coin.

If science does anything else other than methodological naturalism, then it isn't science. Science just starts and doesn't ask why. Real philosophy, on the other hand, doesn't just start, it asks where do we even begin? What method should we use? Etc etc.

Philosophy and science have nothing in common.

Science make no truth claim whatsoever and has no ontology.

I am almost certain you will agree with this, if you don't then we can go no further than the basics here.

Quote
Allright. Let's assume that we don't have enough data about origin of life. Let's for a second think of some wild imaginary data which in the future could come handy to explain origin of life in naturalistic terms. Imagine you have freedom to chose such data which would support abiogenesis. At lease in theory what would be such data? What kind of data it would be? What type of data are we looking for? To make my question more clear I will give you an example. Standard theory of particle physics predicted the existence of Higgs boson. Physicists new what type of data they would look for to validate the existence of it. Whole experimental setup was directed towards this objective. At least you should be able to point to some theoretical findings in the future to validate abiogenesis. And my question is asking exactly that. In fact, there's nothing like it and never will be. Proponents of abiogenesis (which would be the only naturalistic explanation) have no clue what such data could be. This is a clear indication that abiogenesis is false theory in any its form.
I can tell you right now that the theory of abiogenesis isn't at all satisfactory, so you won't find any disagreement from me.

I'm also glad you agree that quantum theory is pretty powerful.



Quote
In fact inability of science to explain many things and instead of explanation talking about fantastic stories brought me to faith.
Depends what calls for the explanation, but of course science is limited, it only studies natural causes. Nobody is using science in order to extract meaning out of Jonah.

Quote
I have no doubt in this. But that does not mean every theory explains facts well.
Of course.

Quote
For example, neo-Darwinian theory of evolution has most ridiculous explanation of the existent facts.
And what is the better alternative?

Quote
This is exactly the point i was making. Because you restricted explanation to naturalistic causes you think there's no competing explanation. In reality there is. Intelligent design (that life is creation of intelligence) is the only conclusion one can make when studying life.
Because science is ONLY limited to natural causes, it does not seek any other explanations outside of that. The reason science doesn't need intelligent design is because it doesn't give us useful predictions, whereas the theory of evolution does. That's the difference.

But let's end intelligent design right in its tracks.

The theory of evolution works remarkably well in its explanation of observable facts - which is exactly what scientific theories do. And it explains it with no reference at all to some sort of mechanicsm of design.

In fact the whole point of the theory of evolution, which makes a very thorough, persuasive account of what the mechanism is - natural selection.

Intelligent design is stuck because it must provide the mechanism, and none of the proponents ever will because all it is some disguise for a doctrine that God created the universe.

It cannot tell us anything beyond that, hence why it cannot be a scientific theory. It is disqualified from the start.

I'll give you a challenge. Give me a theory of origins, meaning you would have to provide a theory of the mechanism that is used by supposed designer in order for us to test it.

I will bet $100 dollars that will never happen because intelligent design isn't a real scientific theory. So if God made things, there is simply no reason for there to be any evidence that God did. Probably because God's actions aren't naturalistic, so further evidence that there is zero point to the intelligent design argument at all.



Quote
I know exactly what "random" means. You make so much claims for Neo-Darwinism i hope you can support it. Firstly, random mutations should be randomly distributed in genome. It is known fact that mutations in genome are not randomly distributed. There are locations in the genome which allow high rates of mutations and there are locations which are very conserved. How can random mutations lead to such a distribution of mutations in genome? Even more, genes coding for immunoglobulins have regions that allow several magnitudes of order of mutation rates than can be seen even in mutational hostspots. These mutations happen in exact spots such that to create a gene which will code for a protein which exactly matches with an antigen towards which it is directed. At the same time constant regions of immunoglobulin genes have mechanisms to not allow mutations in these locations. How can you call this randomness (or something lacking direction) when it directly contradicts your theory?
Sure none of them are random in a mathematical sense, but random in the sense there is no end or purpose. What I think you are doing is confusing random mutations and a random system when its not.

And yeah we know the processes that cause mutations. They have already been tested and confirmed. We also have already measured the rate of mutation and know the consequences.

This all fits perfectly into the theory of evolution.

So we have a very useful explanation for how mutations work, and unless you can present evidence to the contrary this is by all means case closed.

Quote
Furthermore, we don't see objects in the nature that look-like man-made and is not man-made. Anytime we see refrigerators, radios, tvs, computers, cars and so on we know they were designed and created and did not arise out of random processes. We have not seen anything like it and we will not ever say these machines can be brought into existence by random and undirected events. Then why will you say cellular machines (and the whole life for that matter) which are much more complex can arise out of undirected and random event? Why will you not stay consistent (which you have made a principle in other cases) and in one case of intelligent peace of machinery you will claim its intelligent design and another case deny it? After all materials we use are composed of exactly same atoms and molecules that life is composed of. Then what is so special with life that undirected and random processes lead to ordered structures while no such thing happens with regards to human designed machines?
This is incoherent. I haven't said any of the above, and once again you are equivocating with the word "random".

We know where radios, TVS, computers, etc come from - factories. So they are designed. We know where animals come from - they were evolved from earlier life forms, so there is no design.

We aren't looking for design elements and then determine if something was designed. Like I said above, we look to origins.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2015, 09:35:02 PM by nothing »
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,156
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5840 on: September 02, 2015, 09:44:07 PM »
Huh?

 :o
Since I'm posting from phone, I have to keep this short.

ativan just has a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics such as theories, facts, science, truth, etc. I'll sort this all when I get the time.

He certainly is worth responding to and if I can help clear up the confusions he has, I hope that will allow him to see his views are rooted in folly.

I'm not trying to evangelize but I can't help to notice how ativan is using a particular style, it suggests there is something more problematic than the theory of evolution that's he real issue here. I just haven't determined what that is yet.

I suggest that you start by going to the bottom of page 66 of this thread topic to around page 70. I posted seriously during this episode. There is another episode starting around page 96 to around page 106. This will get you up to speed.
Thank you Opus, this is a lot to review and parse.

Opus I hope you can understand that I would like to start from "scratch" with Ativan. It's been nearly 4 years since those posts, and people's opinions can change over time. He may still fervently hold to them, but I'm not willing to discount him yet.
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,156
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5841 on: September 02, 2015, 09:53:59 PM »
If you can provide us with a single observable fact that upends the entire theory, I will make sure I get you nominated for a Nobel.
Single observable fact against neo-Darwinism: there's no observable fact that supports ne-Darwinism.
OK if you wished to not be taken seriously you should have said so from the start.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this is practically a troll.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2015, 09:54:40 PM by nothing »
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5842 on: September 02, 2015, 09:59:17 PM »
If you can provide us with a single observable fact that upends the entire theory, I will make sure I get you nominated for a Nobel.
Single observable fact against neo-Darwinism: there's no observable fact that supports ne-Darwinism.
OK if you wished to not be taken seriously you should have said so from the start.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this is practically a troll.
;D
God bless!

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,586
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5843 on: September 02, 2015, 10:41:34 PM »
And you are also not using the word "random" in how its understood in biology. It basically means that the causes of mutations are itself natural and lack directional properties. So there was nobody planning or guiding any of this. There is no teleology to account for it.
A point: Empirical science, despite the post-Galilean restriction to efficient causation in most respects, has not eliminated teleological explanations entirely within its own method; nor can it. What we call the Laws of Nature, including whatever forces under-gird gravity and electromagnetism, include teleological explanations.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2015, 10:43:19 PM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5844 on: September 02, 2015, 10:55:45 PM »
My use of the consistency argument was actually a refutation of scientism, to show that the one true "consistent" Logos created the cosmos with His character of consistency.
What about miracles then? Are miracles in the line of "a spirit of consistency among all material phenomenon".?

As i remember you have claimed that God has used evolution in Neo-Darwinian fashion or something in this line. Is that right?

Yes, that is correct. Let's use one small part of science that I am sure you and I agree upon:  medicine or pharmacology (judging by your username, you might agree with the science of pharmacology?).  There is a consistency in the treatment of diseases and disorders based on a human being's biochemical, physical, and overall, physiological make-up.  We judge by the pattern of a patient's symptoms along with confirmation using our diagnostic tools what the patient has, and what treatments are available to alleviate, treat, or cure the patient's ailments.
I myself am a physician. I have studied pharmacology, genetics, physiology and so on. I understand principles of all these biological sciences well. I do see that we can treat people and at times very successfully. But there are many cases (as you have mentioned below) when a physician diagnoses lethal condition and there's no treatment under current status of medicine when these terminal patient is cured by miracle in a day. So, how can you put nowadays's so called scientism's assumption about material worldview along with such miracles? How can you explain these miraculous cases within the scope of materialism/naturalism? Your answer is typical of neo-Darwinian response that "we may be seeing in the future something, some data, which would explain this within naturalism. I have responded to nothing and asked similar question. Here it goes: "At least in theory what would be such data? What kind of data it would be? What type of data are we looking for? To make my question more clear I will give you an example. Standard theory of particle physics predicted the existence of Higgs boson. Physicists new what type of data they would look for to validate the existence of it. Whole experimental setup was directed towards this objective. At least you should be able to point to some theoretical findings in the future to validate abiogenesis. And my question is asking exactly that. In fact, there's nothing like it and never will be. Proponents of abiogenesis (which would be the only naturalistic explanation) have no clue what such data could be. This is a clear indication that abiogenesis is false theory in any its form." Just saying let's live and see is no science.

Theistic materialism I can prove to you that as a possible scientific theory it is worthless. If you can explain the phenomenon of life with only materialistic terms there's no need in science to introduce any concept of God/gods. As anecdote goes about Laplace responding to Napoleon Bonaparte telling him that he didn't need any concept of God/gods. If matter possess properties of randomly arising into life and then diversifying then what is the need for God. So, from scientific point of view how do you defend your point of view within the context of today's scientific assumption of materialism? Now, if you look at this from purely religious point of view (and especially true Christian point of view) then you got this situation. A believer in God comes to a university and is exposed to neo-Darwinism. Now he/she loses total interest in God and is turned away from God. One thing to keep him close to God was mystery of life. And all of a sudden he starts to believe in a total and utter nonsense that life is not mysterious at all and every single thing pertaining to life can be explained  in terms of matter and laws that govern it. So, how can you put something that separates man from God within the context of Christian teaching?

And most importantly "theistic evolution view" anti-Christian. Theologizing about God is heretic always unless it is reveled knowledge. All great Christian Saints teach that any statement about God is devel's theology unless it is directly reveled to a man by God. This is not my view but teaching of Saint Maximus the Confessor, Gregory the Theologian, Symon the new theologian and so on. Do you have reveled knowledge of God, His Plans or His Creation?

So this theistic evolutionist's view is neither science no Christian teaching.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,997
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5845 on: September 02, 2015, 11:01:55 PM »
Doctor,

I am really confused as to where you get all this from my small post I just sent you.  You are simply misrepresenting my views.  I appreciate it if you organize your thoughts and try to deduce from where in my posts do you get these ideas about me.

God bless.
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.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5846 on: September 02, 2015, 11:08:35 PM »
Huh?

 :o
ativan just has a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics such as theories, facts, science, truth, etc. i'll sort this all when I get the time.
Ohter than having significant biological education my credentials include some knowledge of philosophy of science (read some books), history of science, logic including classical and non-classical (at some level) and books in physics. I think i have enough understanding of those concepts you've just enumerated. Besides. i have very simple approach to discussion. I ask people what is their definition of certain concepts in order to be on the same page. I've noticed that your view to me seems internally contradictory. But this might be because we don't define terms same way. So I want to give you benefiet of doubt and ask you to define theory, fact, science, truth and continue from there.

Meanwhile I will show you that neo-Darwinism is not science at all. I will to you several different reasons of it and also ask you to show me how diversity of life is explained in only naturalistic terms.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5847 on: September 02, 2015, 11:14:42 PM »
Doctor,

I am really confused as to where you get all this from my small post I just sent you.  You are simply misrepresenting my views.  I appreciate it if you organize your thoughts and try to deduce from where in my posts do you get these ideas about me.

God bless.
God bless you too

You have made statements about God's plans and about mystery of creation didn't you? That God allowed life to develop certain ways is it not a statement about God's creation? How do you know how life came into being? Do you have reveled knowledge of it?

Maybe i misunderstood you. It's quite possible. But then you explain to me how such statement are not statements of theology.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5848 on: September 02, 2015, 11:17:50 PM »
If you can provide us with a single observable fact that upends the entire theory, I will make sure I get you nominated for a Nobel.
Single observable fact against neo-Darwinism: there's no observable fact that supports ne-Darwinism.
OK if you wished to not be taken seriously you should have said so from the start.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this is practically a troll.
Since you think that this is not serious statement, then tell me how neo-Darwinism predicts anything at all and what it predicts. Just brief description (or even a link is enough) of this "how" and "what" is enough.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,997
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5849 on: September 02, 2015, 11:25:54 PM »
Doctor,

I am really confused as to where you get all this from my small post I just sent you.  You are simply misrepresenting my views.  I appreciate it if you organize your thoughts and try to deduce from where in my posts do you get these ideas about me.

God bless.
God bless you too

You have made statements about God's plans and about mystery of creation didn't you? That God allowed life to develop certain ways is it not a statement about God's creation? How do you know how life came into being? Do you have reveled knowledge of it?

Maybe i misunderstood you. It's quite possible. But then you explain to me how such statement are not statements of theology.

Well, I believe that God is consistent, and He created the world with consistency.  When I studied the world, I am convinced of the proof that evolution brings.  That is all.  I cannot in good conscience contradict this.  Therefore, I do have my strong faith in God, and that He created all things and is involved in all things.  The way He creates is not a necessary dogma, and so when I study His creation, I study it with a sense of awe in the beauty of God's ways.  I do not see evolution as a problem as you do.

One person who I think does a good job explaining the theological ideas behind creation is the late Fr. Thomas Hopko of blessed memory.  I think you will his podcasts on Darwin very edifying.

Now, your other issue is does God "reveal" to me knowledge of which no one else knows.  Well, no, not really.  The "knowledge of God" to me means to pray, to have communion with Him, to feel His presence, to grow in virtues and spirituality.  This to me is "true knowledge".  The ideas about creation I do not think comes from "revealed knowledge".  For instance, it is has not been revealed to me that B12 deficiency causes neurological problems.  We "know" this from scientific tests.  God provided for me a brain to study this, and not to be surprised at the results, but to glorify God in all that I study and find out.  I thank God everyday for everything new I learn in science to better help my patients.  This is the way I approach the understanding of science and my spirituality.
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.