West Virginia man sues education officials for teaching his daughter 'religion' of evolution

[mystery-ak]

 

[GourmetDan]

I understand exactly what you're saying Dan; I simply think it's asinine.

Richard Lewontin is an evolutionary biologist and geneticist.  He understands evolution and science far better than you could ever hope to.  And he admitted that science has an absolute duty to produce a materialistic 'theory' because of an 'a priori' commitment to naturalism.  Because of that, it is impossible for science to acknowledge that any materialistic theory it produces is nothing more than fantasy.

[Dexter]

Richard Lewontin is an evolutionary biologist and geneticist.  He understands evolution and science far better than you could ever hope to.  And he admitted that science has an absolute duty to produce a materialistic 'theory' because of an 'a priori' commitment to naturalism.  Because of that, it is impossible for science to acknowledge that any materialistic theory it produces is nothing more than fantasy.

Nothing he said in any way demonstrates that the evidence backing the theory is not legitimate. You're using one man's opinion to completely avoid having to use logic in your argument.

[musiclady]

Like Oceander you have misinterpreted my post; perhaps I should have worded it differently. Some aspects of the theory have changed over time, but the theory itself has never been in question. At no point did scientists discover evidence that made them think we didn't actually evolve. Such evidence will never be discovered because evolution is real and we are simply one more species that has evolved on this planet.

Evolution is real to you because you have faith in it.

Most people don't, because it makes no sense to anyone who has common sense.

And there has never been any proof for macro evolution, so it makes sense that there is no 'evidence' to disprove it.

But sometime, perhaps, you can explain to us stupid people how language, creativity, conscience, rationality, and any number of other human characteristics 'evolved' out of those other creatures who didn't have anything of the sort.

Oh........ and then you can go on to explain where all the other evolving creatures are now...

Never mind.  You can't explain anything that it takes so much faith to believe.......

You can only guess.  And believe those whose agenda is to make you believe what they want you to believe.

[Dexter]

Evolution is real to you because you have faith in it.

Evolution is real to me because it is the most reasonable explanation and there is a plethora of evidence to support it. Even God has to obey the physical laws he created for our universe. People can't pop out of thin air; magic is not real.

Most people don't, because it makes no sense to anyone who has common sense.

It makes sense to the most educated people on the planet.

And there has never been any proof for macro evolution, so it makes sense that there is no 'evidence' to disprove it.

There is a lot of evidence to support macro evolution.

But sometime, perhaps, you can explain to us stupid people how language, creativity, conscience, rationality, and any number of other human characteristics 'evolved' out of those other creatures who didn't have anything of the sort.

Our advanced intelligence is most likely responsible for all of those things. I don't think you're stupid; I actually think you're quite intelligent. Ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing. The fact that you're intelligent is a big part of what makes your ignorance frustrating. If I thought you were an idiot I wouldn't even talk to you.

Oh........ and then you can go on to explain where all the other evolving creatures are now...

All creatures evolve, but evolution happens slowly over immense periods of time. It's not something you can watch in one lifetime.

Never mind.  You can't explain anything that it takes so much faith to believe.......

Actually I can explain it, and so can the scientific community.

You can only guess.  And believe those whose agenda is to make you believe what they want you to believe.

A theory is not a guess.

[aligncare]

Still don't understand that it is not about evidence... but the philosophies guiding the interpretation thereof, eh...

What guiding philosophies did Darwin possess? He was baptized an Anglican and steeped in religion as a child – his mother saw to that. He had the aim of becoming a clergyman when he entered the University of Cambridge.

[GourmetDan]

Nothing he said in any way demonstrates that the evidence backing the theory is not legitimate. You're using one man's opinion to completely avoid having to use logic in your argument.

Again...the philosophies guiding the interpretation thereof is the issue, not the 'evidence'.  I thought you 'understood' this?

By excluding anything but a materialistic conclusion 'a priori' he has completely discredited the entire philosophy guiding the discipline to a 'conclusion'.  'This is impossible by natural processes' is not an option, therefore any proposed materialistic solution is worthless.  There is no other choice.

And he isn't just 'one man'.  He is a top evolutionary biologist and geneticist who understands evolution better than you do.

The absence of logic is in your argument, not mine...

[aligncare]

Richard Lewontin is an evolutionary biologist and geneticist.  He understands evolution and science far better than you could ever hope to.  And he admitted that science has an absolute duty to produce a materialistic 'theory' because of an 'a priori' commitment to naturalism.  Because of that, it is impossible for science to acknowledge that any materialistic theory it produces is nothing more than fantasy.

And Richard Lewontin has no such a priori Commitments?

[GourmetDan]

What guiding philosophies did Darwin possess? He was baptized an Anglican and steeped in religion as a child – his mother saw to that. He had the aim of becoming a clergyman when he entered the University of Cambridge.

You're obviously trying to imply that Darwin was guided by a Christian philosophy when he wrote "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

Are 'Favoured Races' a Christian philosophy?

[GourmetDan]

And Richard Lewontin has no such a priori Commitments?

That's the point... he said that science has an absolute 'a priori' commitment to material causes in his book.

"Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

And he's a guy who would know...

[Dexter]

That's the point... he said that science has an absolute 'a priori' commitment to material causes in his book.

"Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

And he's a guy who would know...

Your belief that science is determined to not let God be the answer to anything is nonsense. If scientists found evidence of God they would share it with the world and become immortalized in history books.

[GourmetDan]

Your belief that science is determined to not let God be the answer to anything is nonsense. If scientists found evidence of God they would share it with the world and become immortalized in history books.

Richard Lewontin, a committed evolutionist, says otherwise...

[Dexter]

Richard Lewontin, a committed evolutionist, says otherwise...

So? He is wrong too.

[aligncare]

You're obviously trying to imply that Darwin was guided by a Christian philosophy when he wrote "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

Are 'Favoured Races' a Christian philosophy?

I'll answer your question if you answer mine. Do you think there are scientists, biologists, zoologists, geneticist and the like, who also have an abiding Christian faith and attend church?

And if so, how might they reconcile their religious faith to their scientific understanding?

[GourmetDan]

So? He is wrong too.

No, he understands science and evolution far better than you do.  He's exactly correct.

[GourmetDan]

I'll answer your question if you answer mine. Do you think there are scientists, biologists, zoologists, geneticist and the like, who also have an abiding Christian faith and attend church?

And if so, how might they reconcile their religious faith to their scientific understanding?

You're obviously implying that there are committed evolutionists who are committed Christians as well.  You already tried that with Darwin.

It means absolutely nothing and serves only to divert the conversation...

[Dexter]

No, he understands science and evolution far better than you do. 

Plenty of equally qualified scientists would disagree with him. You found one scientist that believes one thing and you cling onto it so you can completely avoid having to use logic. You've never engaged this conversation intellectually. You cherry pick quotes and use them to say the evidence doesn't matter.

He's exactly correct.

No, he's not, and neither are you.

[GourmetDan]

His credentials do not make him right about everything. You do know plenty of equally qualified scientists would disagree with him, right? You found one scientist that believes one thing that you can cling onto and absolve yourself from having to use logic. You've never engaged this conversation intellectually. You cherry pick quotes and use them to say the evidence doesn't matter.

His credentials are certainly better than yours when it comes to explaining the underlying philosophy of science.  Surely you can provide some quotes from qualified scientists who have said that science is not based on the philosophy of naturalism.  What philosophy would it be based on then?  Supernaturalism?  There is only naturalism and supernaturalism.  There is nothing in-between.

And again, again, again... it is the philosophies guiding the interpretation of the evidence that is the issue, not the 'evidence'.  I thought you said you 'understood' this?

[Dexter]

His credentials are certainly better than yours when it comes to explaining the underlying philosophy of science.  Surely you can provide some quotes from qualified scientists who have said that science is not based on the philosophy of naturalism.  What philosophy would it be based on then?  Supernaturalism?  There is only naturalism and supernaturalism.  There is nothing in-between.

That was a cute attempt to twist what I was actually saying. Lots of qualified scientists would disagree with the belief that science is determined to never let God be the answer. It would be difficult to find a quote for that because such an absurd opinion is most likely not something scientists discuss very often. Common sense should tell you that if a scientist found evidence of God he/she would use it to become one of the most famous scientists of all time.

And again, again, again... it is the philosophies guiding the interpretation of the evidence that is the issue, not the 'evidence'.  I thought you said you 'understood' this?

How else could one interpret the evidence? No interpretation would suggest that evolution is not real. I'm no longer interested in having this conversation with you. That will change if at some point you decide to actually engage this topic intellectually instead of quoting one man's opinion and using it to write off evolution completely. We probably won't discuss this further because you're probably incapable of doing that.

[GourmetDan]

Lots of qualified scientists would disagree with your belief that science is determined to never let God be the answer. It would be difficult to find a quote for that because such an absurd opinion is most likely not something scientists discuss very often. Common sense should tell you that if a scientist found evidence of God he/she would use it to become one of the most famous scientists of all time.

Ah, so you're the one who can't come up with one scientist to 'cling to', huh?  And you were so sure they're looking for God, too.

Science being based on naturalism and returning only naturalistic answers is an absolutely common sense thing to acknowledge.  Nothing absurd about that at all.  Utterly predictable in fact.

How else could one interpret the evidence? No interpretation would suggest that evolution is not real. I'm no longer interested in having this conversation with you. That will change if at some point you decide to actually engage this topic intellectually instead of quoting one man's opinion and using it to write off evolution completely. Chances are we won't discuss this further because chances are you're incapable of doing that.

Aside from invoking the non-sequitur of defining "what is seen is evolution therefore evolution is true" there really is no other option than to declare victory and blame your opponent...

[musiclady]

Evolution is real to me because it is the most reasonable explanation and there is a plethora of evidence to support it. Even God has to obey the physical laws he created for our universe. People can't pop out of thin air; magic is not real.

Why in the name of all that is rational, did you bring up 'magic?'  It has nothing to do with anything in this discussion.

It makes sense to the most educated people on the planet.

So does global warming, and it's a crock.

There is a lot of evidence to support macro evolution.

So, what species are in the process of evolving into a different species at the current time?

Our advanced intelligence is most likely responsible for all of those things. I don't think you're stupid; I actually think you're quite intelligent. Ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing. The fact that you're intelligent is a big part of what makes your ignorance frustrating. If I thought you were an idiot I wouldn't even talk to you.

Why, that's big of you to condescend to speak with me and try to get me out of my ignorant state.  Would that you would not be so ignorant of the God who created the universe....

The problem you (and other 'educated' people) continue to ignore is that our intelligence didn't just pop out of thin air (didn't you say you didn't believe in magic?)  Evolution cannot explain creativity or conscience, rational thought or language.

Logically, only a Higher Being could have brought those characteristics into being.  But then, I don't think there's much logic in evolution.  Just faith.

All creatures evolve, but evolution happens slowly over immense periods of time. It's not something you can watch in one lifetime.

If you were old enough, you'd laugh at how 'scientists' kept adding time to evolution because their cockamamie theories didn't work out for them.  As I said before, the facts change when the facts turn out to be non-factual.

That's not science.

Actually I can explain it, and so can the scientific community.

No.  You can't.

A theory is not a guess.

Right.  But evolution requires a lot of guessing to make up the 'theory.'

And most people have got that figured out....... even some of us who have advanced degrees, and are not in the least ignorant on the subject.

[aligncare]

Knowledge is power. A quick review of evolution starting with Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, or the Recapitulation Theory, explored here at evolution.berkeley.edu

God authored evolution; it's up to us to understand it.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6aOntogeny.shtml

[Dexter]

Why in the name of all that is rational, did you bring up 'magic?'  It has nothing to do with anything in this discussion.

Creating humans from dirt and ribs would be magic. It is not conducive to the laws of physics. 

So, what species are in the process of evolving into a different species at the current time?

All of them, but none of us will be alive to see the progression of that evolution. We can only look back and see what has already occurred.

Why, that's big of you to condescend to speak with me and try to get me out of my ignorant state.  Would that you would not be so ignorant of the God who created the universe....

You think I'm ignorant and I don't take that personally. I actually like you; I'd even call you my friend if I didn't think you loathed me. I don't think you should take it personally either. I have always respected you as an intellectual.

The problem you (and other 'educated' people) continue to ignore is that our intelligence didn't just pop out of thin air (didn't you say you didn't believe in magic?)  Evolution cannot explain creativity or conscience, rational thought or language.

No, it didn't pop out of thin air. It gradually increased over a very long period of time.

Logically, only a Higher Being could have brought those characteristics into being. 

I disagree.

If you were old enough, you'd laugh at how 'scientists' kept adding time to evolution because their cockamamie theories didn't work out for them.  As I said before, the facts change when the facts turn out to be non-factual.

That's not science.

Science is an ever evolving series of trial and error. We get it wrong until we figure it out and get it right. Some aspects of the theory have changed, but the theory itself has held strong. Science definitely got that part right.

No.  You can't.

I can. 

Right.  But evolution requires a lot of guessing to make up the 'theory.'

It requires a lot of evidence just like any theory does. I will admit that some of our understanding comes from educated guesses that are based on the evidence we already have, but most of our understanding comes from undeniable evidence such as fossils and DNA.

[GourmetDan]

Knowledge is power. A quick review of evolution starting with Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, or the Recapitulation Theory, explored here at evolution.berkeley.edu

God authored evolution; it's up to us to understand it.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6aOntogeny.shtml

Um, your link says "If ORP were completely true, it would certainly make constructing phylogenies a lot easier. We could study an organism’s development and read its history directly. Unfortunately, phylogeneticists are out of luck here."

Where does your link say that science has recognized that "God authored evolution"?

[GourmetDan]

Creating humans from dirt and ribs would be magic. It is not conducive to the laws of physics. 

The Big Bang isn't conducive to the laws of physics either.  Is it also magic?

All of them, but none of us will be alive to see the progression of that evolution. We can only look backwards and see what has already occurred.

Cool, kinda like 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' which no one can see either.  And you don't 'see what has already occurred', you infer it based on a materialistic philosophy.  Big difference.

No, it didn't pop out of thin air. It gradually increased over a very long period of time.

No, you *assume* that it "gradually increased over a very long period of time" because you *impose* certain levels of intelligence on people who were, in all likelihood, much more intelligent than modern humans; or were apes and may still have been more intelligent that modern humans...

Science is an ever evolving series of trial and error. We get it wrong until we figure it out and get it right. Some aspects of the theory have changed, but the theory itself has held strong. We definitely got that part right.

If only the Bible was wrong as much as science is, and could claim that being wrong is a strength; then we could claim it was 'scientific'!

It requires a lot of evidence just like any theory does. I will admit that some of our understanding comes from educated guesses that are based on the evidence we already have, but most of our understanding comes from undeniable evidence such as fossils and DNA.

Again, again, again, again... it is the philosophies guiding the interpretation of the evidence that is the issue, not the 'evidence'.  Most of what is claimed to be 'understanding' is merely inference based on a materialistic philosophy.  Big difference.