tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7190064520141500485.post2098059429049891246..comments2023-07-26T04:20:20.358-07:00Comments on Saint Cynic: Kenneth R. Miller Comments On Jerry Coyne's "Seeing And Believing"Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17771674447306246398noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7190064520141500485.post-4646319092288202142009-12-13T03:33:45.109-08:002009-12-13T03:33:45.109-08:00i'm gonna make my own blogi'm gonna make my own blogAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7190064520141500485.post-60368005951192664322009-05-02T23:13:00.000-07:002009-05-02T23:13:00.000-07:00TP,
"Theistic evolution is a theory such as evolu...TP,<br /><br /><B>"Theistic evolution is a theory such as evolution and the big bang. They are all theories in the big picture."</B>Theistic evolution in one sense is a theory, you're right. However, what 'theory' usually means in the scientific field is 'a non-falsified, repeatable test that confirms a hypothesis' (a loose definition). Given that, evolution is not a 'theory' in the colloquial sense (i.e., a proposed idea); it is a repeatable experiment that confirms a hypothesis.<br /><br />But just to complicate things a little more, the naturalist philosopher (archaic term for 'scientist'), David Hume, put forward a revolutionary principle that states that an unrestricted general conclusion cannot be the basis for all concluding knowledge on an item of study and experimentation. Which is to say that once you know something from repeated experimentation, that doesn't guarantee that you will arrive at the same conclusion through the same experiment in all circumstances. And as we know from quantum physics and the Uncertainty Principle, testing often biases the results at an elemental level because all measurement interferes with what's being measured. Hence nothing is known with absolute certainty.<br /><br />At first glance this would seem to agree with your sentiment that <I>"they are all theories in the big picture"</I>, but in admitting this it places you squarely in the position of not being able to defend decisive conclusions like, <I>"There are no experiments that we as mere mortals can do to prove or illustrate points of creationism."</I> For if the zero-point is that right belief depends on <I>"the amount of weight you personally put on the given evidence"</I> then we can reliably suggest that more mathematical proofs, such as Kalam's Cosmological Argument, terminate the opportunity to disbelieve: determine a point that doesn't exist, disambiguate an actual nothing, count to one (with all infinite variables between nothing and one). <br /><br />The point is that science, Scripture, logic, math all assume a starting point for <B>what is</B> based on the fact that <B>something is</B>. Denial of that is absurd. Thus, we can determine an actual point where something had to have been 'created' or somehow initiated into being; it is scientifically and logically impossible to believe otherwise.<br /><br />With that in mind, we can now calmly disagree together with your original statement that <I>"The only proof of creationism is the bible, that I am aware of. There are no experiments that we as mere mortals can do to prove or illustrate points of creationism."</I>Anticipating your reply.Kane Augustushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06365182037573315451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7190064520141500485.post-8953332551512385852009-05-02T22:06:00.000-07:002009-05-02T22:06:00.000-07:00Theistic evolution is a theory such as evolution a...Theistic evolution is a theory such as evolution and the big bang. They are all theories in the big picture.<br /><br /> What it comes down to, as far as which to believe, or which ones, is the amount of weight you personally put on the given evidence.<br /><br /> Evolution in a smaller scale is factual. Breeding is a great illustration of guided evolution. Chickens can be bred to lay more eggs. Horses bred to run faster. Cows bred to give more milk, or more meat as needed.<br /><br /> The only proof of creationism is the bible, that I am aware of. There are no experiments that we as mere mortals can do to prove or illustrate points of creationism. Which leaves us to proving the validity of the bible. <br /> Sure there are some parts of the bible that are factual. A great many other parts that are fictional, inaccurate, contradictory etc... This is exasperated with the great many translations of the bible.<br /> Therefore I am left to believe that the largest reason to believe in creationism, or the overall validity of the bible, is faith. That is simply not good enough for me.<br /><br /> Of course Evolution has a HUGE hole in the theory. That is simply what started everything. Thus the theory of a big bang. Again even this theory has some observable fact to it in that celestial bodies are moving away from each other. That alone is a far cry from proving the theory of course, but better than a blind guess based on a story someone wrote long ago.<br /><br /> Of course even observable science is based on faith. At least scientific faith is based on observable things.<br /> An example of that is the four elements. At one time the existence of the four elements was irrefutable scientific proof. That was of course proven time and time again through experimentation. Of course as methods of observing things improved scientific law changed as well.<br /> <br /> I think one thing I much prefer about science over religion is the willingness for science to say they are wrong and correct their mistakes.<br /><br /> Oh well enough barely linked rambling for now on this topic.Tag-photoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12214479220550611513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7190064520141500485.post-20964395743700655412009-05-01T22:43:00.000-07:002009-05-01T22:43:00.000-07:00Understood, TP. So, then, more directly, are you ...Understood, TP. So, then, more directly, are you suggesting that theistic evolution is a tenable proposition? That is what you have described above.<br /><br />I think I'm going to have to write an article on the notion of the "leap of faith" and focus on the idea that <I>all knowledge is faith-based</I>. Ergo, a leap is always happening between what we think we know and our inclination to believe what we think we know. Realising and admitting that much has helped me immensely to accept the synergy and symbiosis of faith and knowledge.Kane Augustushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06365182037573315451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7190064520141500485.post-82328533012660242442009-05-01T18:19:00.000-07:002009-05-01T18:19:00.000-07:00I am sorry if I lead you to believe that science ...I am sorry if I lead you to believe that science and religion cannot coexist. I have always felt like it could.<br /><br /> In the same breath though i do not agree with many of the compromises of logic and reasonable thought that many people of faith go to to make them coexist.<br /><br /> One way of thinking about science is simply to study the working of god and at the risk of being blasphemous better understand the workings of god. or the way he thinks.<br /> Of course that study, done with humility, is no more blasphemous than studying the bible to better understand him.<br /><br /> I guess it would be easy to see and to think I do not think they can co-exist. Because I will vehemently argue and debate what I consider stupid and irrational leaps of faith and gross misinterpretation with the sole purpose to justify a preconceived conclusion.Tag-photoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12214479220550611513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7190064520141500485.post-42642606160400952122009-04-30T21:15:00.000-07:002009-04-30T21:15:00.000-07:00So you've completely changed your opinion since th...So you've completely changed your opinion since the last time we wrote to each other on these issues, yes?Kane Augustushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06365182037573315451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7190064520141500485.post-60375840540627936402009-04-29T21:52:00.000-07:002009-04-29T21:52:00.000-07:00Comment 1.
Interesting that only 40% of working...Comment 1.<br /><br /> Interesting that only 40% of working scientists in America are theists, while 82% of the country are theists (or people of faith)<br /><br />(http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/02/08/theism-in-america-belief-in-god-down-to-82.htm)<br /><br /> As an aside... 69% of post graduates have faith....<br /><br /> Seems the more educated less likely to have faith?<br /><br /><br />Comment 2.<br /><br /> Interesting thought on evolution and how it could fit into faith and theory of creationism. Without deluding ourselves that a day is not a day.<br /><br /> What if our current forms are not the forms that god created, "in his image". What if the forms of life that God created were single cell organisms? What if in one day god created all those single cell organisms and let his nature take it's course?<br /><br /> This is what got me thinking that..<br /><br /> "He seems to argue that a person of faith who accepts evolution must also believe God "micro-edited DNA" to guide evolution."<br /><br /> I doubt a god that would give us free will would then micro manage us.... That is kinda absurd way of thinking.<br /><br /> Then again this way of thinking that God created the building blocks in one day and we took ages to evolve into our current form makes a lot of sense to me.<br /><br /> What if we are in the image of god. What if God created a single cell human in the beginning because God started that way? What if through millenia God evolved along the same lines as we are currently following?<br /><br /> I know this is getting to the absurd because the final conclusion of that would logically be that at some point we would all evolve to godlike states.... Absurd....<br /><br /> The rest of my budding thought I like though.<br /><br /> This would answer a lot of questions and oddities in Genesis though. Time lines would be fine since God just started the birthing process, not created matured species.<br /> Kinda like how a woman gives birth to an infant, not an adult....<br /><br />Comment 3.<br /><br /> I do believe that science ad faith can co-exist and that one is not exclusive of the other.Tag-photoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12214479220550611513noreply@blogger.com