PDA

View Full Version : Is the Theory of Evolution a religion?



rogue06
01-24-2014, 12:01 PM
IMHO one of the sillier claims made by opponents of evolution is that evolution, or more properly, evolutional theory, constitutes some sort of religion in that the fact of the matter is that evolutionary theory really does nothing more than attempt to describe a part of nature.

Now while evolution and evolutionary theory may be important to a large number of people does not some how transform a scientific theory into a religion. The only conceivable way that evolutionary theory could be construed as a religion would be to accept an overly-expansive definition of "religion" as being anything pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Unfortunately this so cheapens the definition of religion that it opens it up to practically any activity. Literally anything from stamp collecting to being an avid sports fan (even my girlfriend shopping for shoes) could thereby be considered a religion.

IOW, calling evolution, or evolutionary theory, a religion makes the term religion effectively meaningless.

For instance, many folks are interested in astronomy and following the course of the stars. This has been used as the part of several religions such as Zoroastrianism and Mithraism as some have even imagined how they influence people. And yet that doesn't somehow miraculously transform the science of astronomy into a religion.

Moreover, there are numerous glaring differences between a scientific theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, and a religion that more than makes it more than obvious that evolutionary theory is not a religion of any shape or form.

To start, unlike science, religions seek to explain ultimate reality as well as attempt to describe humanity's place and role within it.

OTOH, evolutionary theory merely tries to explain how life changes and adapts over time and our biological background. And in spite of confused assertions to the contrary, evolution does not even seek to explain how life originated (that is an entirely different scientific field). Nor has it anything to say about the origin or destiny of souls.

Secondly, religions provide moral guidelines and structure for its adherents. In contrast, evolutionary theory (like all scientific theories) does not say anything about values or meanings. Evolution is descriptive, it is not prescriptive meaning that it attempts to describes things, not prescribes how things should be.

While it is true that evolution has been used (and of course misused) by some as a foundation for morals and values, this is only accomplished by going beyond evolutionary theory (the science of evolution) and forming a separate philosophy which should not reflect on the theory itself -- much in the same manner that astrological musings should not reflect upon the science of astronomy.

Likewise, while evolutionary theory has been utilized in studying and speculating about any biological basis for morals and values, merely studying religion does not make the study a religion. Sort of like how using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts doesn't therefore turn archaeology into a religion.

Third, religion accepts that there is something beyond natural laws, a "supernatural" powers or powers. Religions accept as evidence such things as revealed truth.

Again, like all scientific endeavors, evolutionary theory, does not take such things into account. That is just the way science works since it is seeking natural explanations for the various phenomena that we observe. It's sort of like how your plumber doesn't explain your clogged pipes by using supernatural intervention but looks for a completely natural answer.

Also, unlike religion, the explanations that scientists propose must be subject to falsification and vigorous efforts are taken to demonstrate that they are wrong. In fact evolutionary theory, like all scientific theories, not only welcomes these challenges they are open to being changed or even discarded as new evidence is uncovered. In stark contrast, anti-science types often mock this ability to alter theories in light of new contradictory data[/url].


https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/cartoons/after-eden/20011001.gif

Fourth, religions tend to have such things as holy texts and laws, prayers, rituals and sacraments, as well as a formal priesthood. This is not the case in science including evolutionary theory in spite of snarky, ill-informed remarks about Darwin being a high priest and his books being scripture. The fact of the matter is they are anything but and many prominent evolutionary advocates have made a name for themselves by challenging Darwin's ideas and showing them to be in need of either modification or correction.

Folks like Conrad Waddington when he proposed developmental evolution (evo-devo) in 1942. And Motoo Kimura when he proposed the neutral theory of molecular evolution (genetic drift) in 1968. And Lynn Margulis when she proposed Endosymbiotic theory in 1970. And Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould when they proposed punctuated equilibrium in 1973. And Søren Løvtrup when he proposed Epigenetics in 1974. And Carl Woese when he proposed horizontal gene transfer in 1977.

These are all examples of controversial theories when they first came out in that they accounted for observed biological changes that did not correspond to the expectations of the neo-Darwinian models derived from the New Synthesis (which itself over-turned pure Darwinian thought and theory). In a religion such "trouble makers" are rarely embraced but instead are generally kicked out and form their own church or even start a new religion.

Fifth, if evolution is some how a religion it must be the only religion that none of its adherents recognize? IOW, if evolution is a religion then why don't any of its adherents recognize it as such? Ask an evolutionist such as Kenneth Miller what his religion is he will tell you that he is a Christian. Likewise for such folks as Francis Collins, Denis Lamoureux, Simon Conway Morris, George Coyne, Richard G. Colling, Keith B. Miller, Karl Giberson, Robert Baker and even the person who co-founded the Theory of Evolution with Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace.

Even the more militant atheists who have been involved in evolutionary theory such as Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers will inform you that evolution is anything but a religion for them.

Nobody, whether theist or atheist will identify their religion as evolution.

What's more, I think some evolution deniers seek to label evolution a religion in a misguided attempt to "level the playing field" but this entire concept is actually implicitly disparaging religion in the process. They don't seem to realize that they are in a sense saying that science needs to be brought down to the level of religion.

rogue06
01-24-2014, 12:02 PM
To add to the above, some evolution deniers like to quote what Michael Ruse wrote in "How evolution became a religion: creationists correct?" in support of their contention that evolutionary theory constitutes a religion:


“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today ... Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”

Essentially his actual position is the same that has been articulated by those who could be described as TEs over the years such as Benjamin Warfield, the biblical inerrantist par excellence and whose influence can be seen in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, who expressed it well during his class lectures on evolution prepared in 1888 and used until at least 1900:


"The upshot of the whole matter is that there is no necessary antagonism of Christianity to evolution, provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of evolution. To adopt any form that does not permit God freely to work apart from law and which does not allow miraculous intervention (in the giving of the soul, in creating Eve, etc.) will entail a great reconstruction of Christian doctrine, and a very great lowering of the detailed authority of the Bible.”

Another influential defender of evangelical doctrine, vocal critic of theological liberalism and a contributor to The Fundamentals, James Orr, also contrasted between naturalistic/materialistic evolution and evolution itself maintaining that God supernaturally guided the evolutionary process leading to humanity (the position advocated by Alfred Wallace -- the co-discoverer of the ToE).

Similarly when John Paul II issued his statement on evolution in his address, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" in 1996 he clearly distinguished between "materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations," rejecting as "incompatible" with Scripture views, for example, that "consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter."

Even some of those cited as staunch opponents of evolution appear to have held this view when asked to elaborate. For instance Charles Hodge said in "What is Darwinism" that evolution by chance is atheism (p156), but he did in fact allow evolution, "If God made them it makes no difference so far as the question of design is concerned how he made them; whether at once or by aprocess of evolution." (p95). He rejected naturalistic or materialistic views of evolution but accepted that evolution might be established and directed by God.

It is the purely naturalistic/materialistic views of evolution (such as that promoted by Richard Dawkins) that TEs reject and that Ruse is describing in the quote as being like a religion.

That Ruse recognizes this distinction is seen in his later works such as "Is Evolution a Secular Religion? (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full)" where he distinguishes between evolution and what he termed "Darwinism" (much in the manner that Orr did) and places much of the blame for confusion on Thomas Henry Huxley and his desire for reform in Britain.

Ruse feels that Huxley saw the Anglican Church as being the primary opponent to social change and reforms in the country and thinks he therefore "saw the need to found his own church" based upon naturalism and employed evolution to this end. This apparently is what he meant when he complained that evolution was "promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality" from the beginning.

IOW, Ruse clearly distinguished between "professional evolutionary biology: mathematical, experimental, not laden with value statements" and "evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation." It is the latter view that TEs have consistently rejected.

This is why Ruse concluded: "if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry" (emphasis added).

And Ruse also has written more upon how his remarks have been misinterpreted with this being but one example (http://web.archive.org/web/20031219103505/http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/September/6-512-news7.txt).

Finally there is another quote often circulated in support of the idea that evolution is a religion and that is one made by L. Harrison Matthews in the introduction of the edition of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" that was published in 1971:


…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.

According to Michael Ruse, who asked Matthews about this statement, he meant this comment purely as a jab at the embryologist Sir Gavin Rylands de Beer who he had long argued with and was upset at how creationists had misappropriated it and misrepresented him.

Further during McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (the U.S. District Court decision concerning the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act) the defense had planned to use Matthews comments as some sort of trump card to link evolutionary theory to "secular humanism" (and actually included them in their original brief) until they got wind of what Matthews told Ruse and quickly decided to drop it like a hot potato. As Ruse said of the entire incident: "of such molehill things are creationist mountains made."

Raphael
01-24-2014, 12:17 PM
I did just skimm read this, but the following statement I disagree with

Third, religion accepts that there is something beyond natural laws, a "supernatural" powers or powers. Religions accept as evidence such things as revealed truth.

Partly because I consider Scientism to be a religion and it does claim that there is nothing beyond the natural laws. (I also consider atheism and agnosticism to be religious positions if not organised religions. although the recent founding of atheist churches the are becoming an organised religion)

rogue06
01-24-2014, 12:30 PM
I did just skimm read this, but the following statement I disagree with

Partly because I consider Scientism to be a religion and it does claim that there is nothing beyond the natural laws. (I also consider atheism and agnosticism to be religious positions if not organised religions. although the recent founding of atheist churches the are becoming an organised religion)
This kind of falls into what I mean about expanding the definition of what constitutes a religion. I think the above (not counting the atheist churches) fall under philosophical outlooks or world views rather than religions.

Catholicity
01-24-2014, 01:09 PM
I did just skimm read this, but the following statement I disagree with

Partly because I consider Scientism to be a religion and it does claim that there is nothing beyond the natural laws. (I also consider atheism and agnosticism to be religious positions if not organised religions. although the recent founding of atheist churches the are becoming an organised religion)

Here's the one issue I take. When studied, science is only concerned with what it can detect using the senses as opposed to matters of faith. I believe that if and reasonably so, the two did not attempt to disprove one another, it would be much easier to dialogue. (e.g faith did not try to discredit what can be looked at with the five sense and scientists would just simply say all were here to do is study the natural law, matters of faith are left to the person)

shunyadragon
01-24-2014, 01:15 PM
I did just skimm read this, but the following statement I disagree with

Partly because I consider Scientism to be a religion and it does claim that there is nothing beyond the natural laws. (I also consider atheism and agnosticism to be religious positions if not organised religions. although the recent founding of atheist churches the are becoming an organised religion)

The claim there is nothing beyond Natural Laws would be Philosophical (Ontological) Naturalism, and not Science (Scientism Huh?). Atheists and strong agnostics may hold this view, (ie Richard Dawkins). The foundation of Science and evolution is based on Methodological Naturalism, which makes no assumptions beyond scientific methods and Natural Laws. Those who believe in Theistic Evolution, and most other scientists believe in Methodological Naturalism. Science itself nor evolution would not be a religion nor religious belief. The assumption that there is nothing beyond Natural Law is something that the scientific methods could not possibly determine.

Duragizer
01-24-2014, 09:41 PM
If evolution's a religion, then I'm a rather faithless observant, 'cause I'd dump it in a minute if a logical, reality-affirming version of creationism were to spring up.

phank
01-27-2014, 09:11 AM
This seems mostly a matter of orientation, I think. For those whose religious beliefs are (a) testable and (b) not negotiable, science is clearly uncongenial because it has the nasty habit of testing everything it can. And sure enough, many testable religious beliefs fail the tests. But the point is that this sort of person is religion-centric, and regards the conflict between belief and observation as a religious conflict. Evolutionary theory is in profound and broad conflict with the overall faith of many Christians (and some other faiths), and since this conflict is visualized as falling on religious grounds, evolutionary theory is ipso facto religious. It's a false faith.

Conversely, those whose orientation is primarily scientific tend to look at conflicting religious claims as being bad science. Also known as Making Stuff Up, since it either lacks any evidentiary basis, or isn't testable, or in fact stands soundly refuted by board and solid bodies of observation, theory, and modeling. So at the extremes, the religious person regards everything as religion, which is either true or false religion depending on the assertion. Science-oriented extremists regard religion generally as being deliberate and self-defended ignorance. At best, the religioius person has carefully compartmentalized his faith so that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. So one compartment knows that certain tenets of faith, certain past miracles, are absurd and preposterous. The other compartment "knows" that such miracles happened and cannot afford to be concerned with mechanisms or tests.

I personally see this as a matter of one's posture toward evidence. What does one do if faith requires that all relevant evidence be discounted? What can the intelligent and knowledgeable believer do, except to compartmentalize specific tenets to protect them from honest examination?

Jonathandavid
01-27-2014, 10:05 AM
The debate is ridiculous, of course the theory of evolution is not a religion. Otherwise, people are free to construct their religious views using whatever they please, any science can inspire a religious worldview, as can art or philosophy.

I rather like this quote by Stephen Jay Gould, from his essay 'Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding', published in Bully for Brontosaurus. He recalls the legal battles to get creationism taught in schools:

In their recently aborted struggle [sic] to inject Genesis literalism into science classrooms, fundamentalist groups followed their usual opportunistic strategy of arguing two contradictory sides of a question when a supposed retorical advantage could be extracted from each. Their main pseudoargument held that Genesis literalism is not religion at all, but really an alternative form of science not acknowledged by professional biologists too hidebound and dogmatic to appreciate the cutting edge of their own discipline. When we successfully pointed out that "creation science" - as an untestable set of dogmatic proposals - could not qualify as science by any definition, they turned around and shamelessly argued the other side. (They actually pulled off the neater trick of holding both positions simultaneously.) Now they argued that, yes indeed, creation science is religion, but evolution is equally religious.

Personally, I am always surprised that the term "religion" is apparently used as an insult by the people who think religion is an essential if not the most important part of their lives. Isn't it amazing that such a weighty term is used so lightly?

shunyadragon
01-27-2014, 10:14 AM
The debate is ridiculous, of course the theory of evolution is not a religion. Otherwise, people are free to construct their religious views using whatever they please, any science can inspire a religious worldview, as can art or philosophy.

I rather like this quote by Stephen Jay Gould, from his essay 'Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding', published in Bully for Brontosaurus. He recalls the legal battles to get creationism taught in schools:

In their recently aborted struggle [sic] to inject Genesis literalism into science classrooms, fundamentalist groups followed their usual opportunistic strategy of arguing two contradictory sides of a question when a supposed retorical advantage could be extracted from each. Their main pseudoargument held that Genesis literalism is not religion at all, but really an alternative form of science not acknowledged by professional biologists too hidebound and dogmatic to appreciate the cutting edge of their own discipline. When we successfully pointed out that "creation science" - as an untestable set of dogmatic proposals - could not qualify as science by any definition, they turned around and shamelessly argued the other side. (They actually pulled off the neater trick of holding both positions simultaneously.) Now they argued that, yes indeed, creation science is religion, but evolution is equally religious.

Personally, I am always surprised that the term "religion" is apparently used as an insult by the people who think religion is an essential if not the most important part of their lives. Isn't it amazing that such a weighty term is used so lightly?

It is often the case that the word 'religion' is used as a stone to throw at people who believe differently including science.

Jorge
01-30-2014, 03:48 PM
To add to the above, some evolution deniers like to quote what Michael Ruse wrote in "How evolution became a religion: creationists correct?" in support of their contention that evolutionary theory constitutes a religion:


“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today ... Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”

Essentially his actual position is the same that has been articulated by those who could be described as TEs over the years such as Benjamin Warfield, the biblical inerrantist par excellence and whose influence can be seen in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, who expressed it well during his class lectures on evolution prepared in 1888 and used until at least 1900:


"The upshot of the whole matter is that there is no necessary antagonism of Christianity to evolution, provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of evolution. To adopt any form that does not permit God freely to work apart from law and which does not allow miraculous intervention (in the giving of the soul, in creating Eve, etc.) will entail a great reconstruction of Christian doctrine, and a very great lowering of the detailed authority of the Bible.”

Another influential defender of evangelical doctrine, vocal critic of theological liberalism and a contributor to The Fundamentals, James Orr, also contrasted between naturalistic/materialistic evolution and evolution itself maintaining that God supernaturally guided the evolutionary process leading to humanity (the position advocated by Alfred Wallace -- the co-discoverer of the ToE).

Similarly when John Paul II issued his statement on evolution in his address, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" in 1996 he clearly distinguished between "materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations," rejecting as "incompatible" with Scripture views, for example, that "consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter."

Even some of those cited as staunch opponents of evolution appear to have held this view when asked to elaborate. For instance Charles Hodge said in "What is Darwinism" that evolution by chance is atheism (p156), but he did in fact allow evolution, "If God made them it makes no difference so far as the question of design is concerned how he made them; whether at once or by aprocess of evolution." (p95). He rejected naturalistic or materialistic views of evolution but accepted that evolution might be established and directed by God.

It is the purely naturalistic/materialistic views of evolution (such as that promoted by Richard Dawkins) that TEs reject and that Ruse is describing in the quote as being like a religion.

That Ruse recognizes this distinction is seen in his later works such as "Is Evolution a Secular Religion? (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full)" where he distinguishes between evolution and what he termed "Darwinism" (much in the manner that Orr did) and places much of the blame for confusion on Thomas Henry Huxley and his desire for reform in Britain.

Ruse feels that Huxley saw the Anglican Church as being the primary opponent to social change and reforms in the country and thinks he therefore "saw the need to found his own church" based upon naturalism and employed evolution to this end. This apparently is what he meant when he complained that evolution was "promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality" from the beginning.

IOW, Ruse clearly distinguished between "professional evolutionary biology: mathematical, experimental, not laden with value statements" and "evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation." It is the latter view that TEs have consistently rejected.

This is why Ruse concluded: "if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry" (emphasis added).

And Ruse also has written more upon how his remarks have been misinterpreted with this being but one example (http://web.archive.org/web/20031219103505/http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/September/6-512-news7.txt).

Finally there is another quote often circulated in support of the idea that evolution is a religion and that is one made by L. Harrison Matthews in the introduction of the edition of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" that was published in 1971:


…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.

According to Michael Ruse, who asked Matthews about this statement, he meant this comment purely as a jab at the embryologist Sir Gavin Rylands de Beer who he had long argued with and was upset at how creationists had misappropriated it and misrepresented him.

Further during McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (the U.S. District Court decision concerning the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act) the defense had planned to use Matthews comments as some sort of trump card to link evolutionary theory to "secular humanism" (and actually included them in their original brief) until they got wind of what Matthews told Ruse and quickly decided to drop it like a hot potato. As Ruse said of the entire incident: "of such molehill things are creationist mountains made."

You retain your 'abilities', r06. Here you employ the ol' Elephant Hurling strategy: toss out so much stuff that your opponents are overwhelmed - utterly smothered! - by the sheer magnitude of the task to respond to it all and so they don't respond after which you raise up the 'victory flag'. :no:

The number of errors in your mini-dissertation above are LEGION-SQUARED! I'm leaving it at that. Besides, I had already responded to it a hundred times before TWeb went kaboom. If you didn't listen to any one of those hundred times, combined with the fact that you're repeating the same schtick above, why would you listen now?

Nah ... I've much better things to do with my time. Speaking of which, I've been working on Information Theory for quite some time now (but a good chunk remaining). Stay tuned ... I'll let you guys know when I'm ready to publish.

Jorge

phank
01-30-2014, 06:03 PM
You retain your 'abilities', r06. Here you employ the ol' Elephant Hurling strategy: toss out so much stuff that your opponents are overwhelmed - utterly smothered! - by the sheer magnitude of the task to respond to it all and so they don't respond after which you raise up the 'victory flag'. :no:

Whereas the exact opposite approach to presenting a careful examination, is to chant the same dishonest slogans a hundred times, in the hopes that someday they might come true. Certainly beats acquiring knowledge and thinking about it. Why, the very prospect is overwhelming!

Jorge
01-31-2014, 08:38 AM
Whereas the exact opposite approach to presenting a careful examination, is to chant the same dishonest slogans a hundred times, in the hopes that someday they might come true. Certainly beats acquiring knowledge and thinking about it. Why, the very prospect is overwhelming!

You're blathering childish nonsense, phank ... I see that you've retained your M.O.
The well-thought-out knowledge that I've presented here at TWeb many, many
times is summarily dismissed by the likes of you and r06 ... so, why bother?

The title of this thread is "Is the Theory of Evolution a Religion?" No, it isn't.
But to many it is undoubtedly a PART of their religious position, be that position
Atheistic-Humanistic, Deistic, or even Theistic. No more need be said.

Jorge

Wally
01-31-2014, 01:26 PM
Actually, the answer depends on how you define religion.

Most people casually think of religion as "the worshiping of a deity"

If you distort the definition enough, you end up with things like Scientology being defined as a religion.

I think this is the definition Jorge and his ilk use.

phank
01-31-2014, 02:46 PM
As far as I can tell, Jorge considers accepting anything incompatible with his delusions as being a religion. Apparently overwhelming bodies of evidence don't matter when you have "well-thought-out knowledge."

Cerebrum123
01-31-2014, 03:28 PM
As far as I can tell, Jorge considers accepting anything incompatible with his delusions as being a religion. Apparently overwhelming bodies of evidence don't matter when you have "well-thought-out knowledge."

Wow, Jorge says that evolutionary theory is not a religion, and yet you still blast him as if he said it was. I don't think he should be said to have "delusions" in this thread. If anything it's your post displaying what appear to be "delusions".

phank
01-31-2014, 04:19 PM
Wow, Jorge says that evolutionary theory is not a religionWhere? Certainly not in this thread. What he said in this thread is that, well, it's not a religion except that well, it IS part of the religion of disbelief in his religion. OK, let's grant that Jorge didn't call it a religion, he called it a religious position. Before the Great Crash, he called evolutionary theory a religion repeatedly, as I recall. Here, all he's doing is taking a cogent, coherent examination of the question and dismissing it all as nonsense.


and yet you still blast him as if he said it was. I don't think he should be said to have "delusions" in this thread. If anything it's your post displaying what appear to be "delusions".

OK, let's moderate that a bit. Rogue06 went to a considerable amount of trouble to produce a very well written and informative serious of posts. Jorge responds to the many compelling points raised in those posts by saying "The number of errors in your mini-dissertation above are LEGION-SQUARED! I'm leaving it at that." Of course, Jorge ALWAYS leaves it at that. Not one error pointed out, not one argument made, nothing but trashing another poster's efforts while providing not a trace of substance.

I would be perfectly willing to take the position that rogue06's points are NOT delusional, and that dismissing them all wholesale without a single substantive response is if not delusional at the very least worthless. And yet, here you are defending Jorge rather than rogue06. I admit I can't help drawing some inferences from this.

Meanwhile, I eagerly await Jorge's dissertation on information theory. I'll be especially interested in which peers review it before publication.

Roy
01-31-2014, 05:00 PM
Wow, Jorge says that evolutionary theory is not a religionWhere? Certainly not in this thread.Yes, in this thread: "The title of this thread is "Is the Theory of Evolution a Religion?" No, it isn't." That doesn't leave any room for doubt.

Roy

shunyadragon
02-01-2014, 04:56 AM
Actually, the answer depends on how you define religion.

Most people casually think of religion as "the worshiping of a deity"

If you distort the definition enough, you end up with things like Scientology being defined as a religion.

I think this is the definition Jorge and his ilk use.

Actually, by almost any accepted definitions scientology would be a religion regardless of one's personal opinion of the belief. The problem is with calling 'Science (Scientism???)' a religion, which does not fit any of the accepted definitions of religion in the English language.

shunyadragon
02-01-2014, 04:59 AM
Wow, Jorge says that evolutionary theory is not a religion, and yet you still blast him as if he said it was. I don't think he should be said to have "delusions" in this thread. If anything it's your post displaying what appear to be "delusions".

Please note J**** said,
"But to many it is undoubtedly a PART of their religious position."

Wally
02-01-2014, 05:13 AM
Actually, by almost any accepted definitions scientology would be a religion regardless of one's personal opinion of the belief. The problem is with calling 'Science (Scientism???)' a religion, which does not fit any of the accepted definitions of religion in the English language.


It's actually very bad pop psychology, if you really stretch the definition, it might qualify as a philosophy, but that's my point, the definition of religion for most people involves a deity.

Maybe it would be more accurate to say a superstition and non-superstition, but that, even though accurate, sounds disrespectful to those who read more in to the descriptions that the literal.

Cerebrum123
02-01-2014, 07:17 AM
Please note J**** said,

Yeah, and? Do you dispute that sentence?

phank
02-01-2014, 07:52 AM
OK, Jorge said it's not a religion per se, but it does constitute part (perhaps an important part) of the religion of atheism. Go figure.

Jorge
02-01-2014, 09:04 AM
Please note J**** said,

To the poor souls like dragon that are clearly comprehension-impaired, let me repeat and clarify:

In and of itself, the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is not a religion. However, for a great many people the ToE does undoubtedly serve a major role - a major part - in their religion. As one example, what would Atheism-Humanism be without the ToE? Dawkins himself said (paraphrasing) : "Darwin (i.e., Darwinism ... the ToE) makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist." That statement implies, of course, that before the ToE an Atheist was not and could not be intellectually fulfilled.

But it is not the same to be a part of a religion than being a religion on its own. You need to improve your basic logic skills, dragon.

?Comprende?

Jorge

Jorge
02-01-2014, 09:07 AM
OK, Jorge said it's not a religion per se, but it does constitute part (perhaps an important part) of the religion of atheism. Go figure.

See my previous post ... apply generously to yourself. :no:

Jorge

Cerebrum123
02-01-2014, 09:51 AM
OK, Jorge said it's not a religion per se, but it does constitute part (perhaps an important part) of the religion of atheism. Go figure.

He also applied it to theistic, and deistic religious stances.

phank
02-01-2014, 10:08 AM
He also applied it to theistic, and deistic religious stances.Yes, as I said. He regards faith in evolution as a part of a list of religious positions different from his own. Pretty clearly, he casts the theory of evolution in religious and not scientific terms.

Roy
02-01-2014, 10:33 AM
Yes, as I said. He regards faith in evolution as a part of a list of religious positions different from his own. Pretty clearly, he casts the theory of evolution in religious and not scientific terms.Yeah - just like I think of transsubstantiation and the planet Kolob in religous terms. They too are part of religious positions, but they are definitely not religions.

Roy

shunyadragon
02-01-2014, 12:32 PM
It's actually very bad pop psychology, if you really stretch the definition, it might qualify as a philosophy, but that's my point, the definition of religion for most people involves a deity.

Careful, the definition includes more than what most people call a deity.


1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I believe scientology is a hoax and a pyramid con game of unbelievable proportions, but my opinion does not exclude it from being considered a religion.

phank
02-01-2014, 01:10 PM
Yeah - just like I think of transsubstantiation and the planet Kolob in religous terms. They too are part of religious positions, but they are definitely not religions.

RoySeems that religious people find uncongenial scientific theories to be False Faith, while science-oriented people tend to see religion as Bad Science.

Jorge
02-02-2014, 03:48 AM
Yes, as I said. He regards faith in evolution as a part of a list of religious positions different from his own. Pretty clearly, he casts the theory of evolution in religious and not scientific terms.

As I've stated umpteen times on TWeb in the past, there are TWO 'evolutions' - one is scientific and the other is metaphysics/religion. "Allele frequencies in populations change" is SCIENCE - it is testable, observable and verifiable. On the other hand, "life emerged naturally" and "every living thing today proceeds from a single unicellular ancestor" is NOT science - are beliefs based mostly on a religious ideology (Materialism). There is a huge amount of (true) science that does not support these beliefs.

PLEASE try to grab a clue ... God knows that I've tossed many clues your way. :no:

Jorge

rwatts
02-02-2014, 04:03 AM
As I've stated umpteen times on TWeb in the past, there are TWO 'evolutions' - one is scientific and the other is metaphysics/religion. "Allele frequencies in populations change" is SCIENCE - it is testable, observable and verifiable. On the other hand, "life emerged naturally" and "every living thing today proceeds from a single unicellular ancestor" is NOT science - are beliefs based mostly on a religious ideology (Materialism). There is a huge amount of (true) science that does not support these beliefs.

PLEASE try to grab a clue ... God knows that I've tossed many clues your way. :no:

JorgeI'd have thought that a change in allele frequencies in populations is as much "materialism" as is the idea that tetrapods evolved from lobe finned fish. The latter is all about change in allele frequencies too.

Have you ever watched the allele frequency of a population change Jorge, such that you know that God can be removed from the explanation? And did you know that we can indeed test the idea that tetrapods evolved from lobe finned fish? We can repeatedly test the idea. The idea is as observable as is the idea that the earth has a semi-molten core. I don't see you running around accusing geophysicists of being religious because they claim to have evidence for the semi molten state of the earth's core.

And are you sure that God actually agrees with your "clues", or do you merely think that he does?


In short.

Your arguments against ToE need to be logical and consistent. I feel certain that God would feel very poorly about your ability to argue your case, should he exist.

Juvenal
02-02-2014, 07:03 AM
I like what you've done with your name, watts ... er, rwatts ... it's very slimming.

HMS_Beagle
02-02-2014, 07:25 AM
As I've stated umpteen times on TWeb in the past, there are TWO 'evolutions' - one is scientific and the other is metaphysics/religion.

You seem to be the only person on the web who offers up this 'two evolutions' idea. Certainly no one with even a rudimentary understanding of science agrees with you (and posts about it). That doesn't bode well for your pet idea spreading very far.


"Allele frequencies in populations change" is SCIENCE - it is testable, observable and verifiable. On the other hand, "life emerged naturally" and "every living thing today proceeds from a single unicellular ancestor" is NOT science - are beliefs based mostly on a religious ideology (Materialism).

How would you do science without relying 100% on materialism? Can you offer any examples? Praying for your grant proposal to be funded doesn't count of course. :smile:

Cerebrum123
02-02-2014, 07:47 AM
You seem to be the only person on the web who offers up this 'two evolutions' idea. Certainly no one with even a rudimentary understanding of science agrees with you (and posts about it). That doesn't bode well for your pet idea spreading very far.



-snip*

Actually, G.A. Kerkut has divided evolution into two categories. He does so in the book "Implications of Evolution". Here's the quote.

“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.”

So, do you consider him to be someone with a "rudimentary understanding of science"?

*Yes, I snipped out the part about prayer, it didn't really have any relevance to my response.

ETA: Oops, here's a link to his full work. It's available free here. http://archive.org/stream/implicationsofev00kerk/implicationsofev00kerk_djvu.txt

HMS_Beagle
02-02-2014, 08:01 AM
Actually, G.A. Kerkut has divided evolution into two categories. He does so in the book "Implications of Evolution". Here's the quote.

“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.”

So, do you consider him to be someone with a "rudimentary understanding of science"?

*Yes, I snipped out the part about prayer, it didn't really have any relevance to my response.

ETA: Oops, here's a link to his full work. It's available free here. http://archive.org/stream/implicationsofev00kerk/implicationsofev00kerk_djvu.txt

I can see several glaring errors in Kerkut's understanding easily. One is he lumps common descent with OOL and calls them both evolutionary theory. That is flat out wrong. Another is the claim that we don't understand how lots of microevolution can add up to macroevolution. A third is the false claim that ToE is thought correct because nothing else can take its place.

Given those three big misunderstandings of the basics I'd have to conclude he doesn't have a rudimentary understanding of science, at least not the science that supports evolutionary theory.

As to the second part of Jorge's claim: can you give us a way to do science without relying 100% on materialism?

Jonathandavid
02-02-2014, 08:43 AM
As I've stated umpteen times on TWeb in the past..."life emerged naturally" and "every living thing today proceeds from a single unicellular ancestor" is NOT science...There is a huge amount of (true) science that does not support these beliefs...

Actually, both claims seem very testable, and look like good empirical hypotheses. "Life emerged naturally" certainly points toward a research program that gives enouh handholds for science, and there is a lot of research on exactly this subject. "Every living thing today proceeds from a single unicellular ancestor" is actually quite well corroborated, although I think the proposition is too simplistic concerning the earliest life.

Neither of these claims imply any theological or metaphysical viewpoint. They do not refute creation; any natural event can be wholly ascribed to God. If you're looking for an evolution-derived worldview on metaphysics, I think you're barking up the wrong tree, and would do better to read Ruse's articles on evolution as a 'secular religion', which are about another matter entirely.

Cerebrum123
02-02-2014, 09:10 AM
I can see several glaring errors in Kerkut's understanding easily. One is he lumps common descent with OOL and calls them both evolutionary theory. That is flat out wrong. Another is the claim that we don't understand how lots of microevolution can add up to macroevolution. A third is the false claim that ToE is thought correct because nothing else can take its place.

Given those three big misunderstandings of the basics I'd have to conclude he doesn't have a rudimentary understanding of science, at least not the science that supports evolutionary theory.

Well, that work was written in 1960, and he died in 2004. He had a doctorate in zoology, and was the editor of at least two scientific journals. Did you at least look at the introduction in his book?

As for the first "error", for a long time abiogenesis was touted as "chemical evolution", and was(and often is) tied to evolutionary theory. To say otherwise is to deny history.

As for the second "error", was that information available in 1960?

As for the third "error", a quote from Lewontin would show that Kerkut is not the only one to think that way.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen."



As to the second part of Jorge's claim: can you give us a way to do science without relying 100% on materialism?

I snipped it for a reason, but I think that Lewontin actually answers it. Science doesn't demand reliance on materialism, only the a priori commitment of certain scientists demands it.

Oh, here's a few quotations from PZ Meyers, Jerry Coyne, and Sean Carrol about being able to detect the "supernatural" if the evidence was sufficient. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/detecting-the-supernatural-why-science-doesnt-presuppose-methodological-naturalism-after-all/

HMS_Beagle
02-02-2014, 09:26 AM
Well, that work was written in 1960, and he died in 2004. He had a doctorate in zoology, and was the editor of at least two scientific journals.

Doesn't change in the least the fact that he was wrong about the things in that paragraph you posted.


As for the first "error", for a long time abiogenesis was touted as "chemical evolution", and was(and often is) tied to evolutionary theory. To say otherwise is to deny history.

Only to Biblical Creationists, not to anyone in the real scientific community.


As for the second "error", was that information available in 1960?

We're not in 1960 anymore Toto.


As for the third "error", a quote from Lewontin would show that Kerkut is not the only one to think that way.

Aah, the famous cite of Lewontin. Creations love that one. It still has nothing to do with Kerkut's third big error, claiming ToE is called correct only because there are no other possible explanations.



I snipped it for a reason, but I think that Lewontin actually answers it. Science doesn't demand reliance on materialism, only the a priori commitment of certain scientists demands it.

Then tell me how we do science, any science, without relying 100% on materialism.

Cerebrum123
02-02-2014, 10:09 AM
Doesn't change in the least the fact that he was wrong about the things in that paragraph you posted.

Since he's not talking about Special Theory of Evolution in that paragraph, and he gave definitions for both it and General Theory of Evolution in his work, those were not "errors". He gives reasons for talking about the two separately.


Only to Biblical Creationists, not to anyone in the real scientific community.

False. Most often it was by the scientists promoting it. Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, and Nick Matzke are all supporting abiogenesis as part of evolution. Here's a link to an article by Matzke on the subject.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-critics-of.html

Here's a bit from the article on why taking OOL out of evolutionary theory is well, according to him "lazy"*.

"The second statement, splitting the OOL from evolutionary theory, is only technically correct in a sort of legalistic, hairsplitting way. Sure, it’s true that technically, “evolution” only happens once you have life, or at least replicators, but getting from replicators to the last common ancestor is most of what most people think about when they’re thinking about the origin of life, i.e., “where did the evolutionary ancestor of all life today come from?” and all of that is evolution all the way. Furthermore, even the origin of the first classical “replicator” was itself very likely an evolutionary process, in that it occurred in stepwise fashion and not all-at-once, and that the first replicator was likely preceded by various sorts of pseudoreplication, statistical inheritance and kinetic biases. If you remove evolution from your thinking about the origin of the first replicator then it is very likely you will never understand how it happened, or what the current research on the question is about. Finally, even apart from these detailed considerations, “evolution” reasonably has a broader meaning – the evolution of the universe, the solar system, the planet, and the planet’s geochemistry, and the origin of life and the origin of the first replicator must be understood as part of that larger evolutionary history.

One other telling point is that the statement “but the OOL is outside of evolutionary theory” response also has the problem of simply dodging the hard work of describing the discoveries and work of modern science, a problem I have already described. In conclusion, if it were up to me, I would completely scrap this statement from the rhetorical toolkit of evolution defenders."


We're not in 1960 anymore Toto.

I point that out since that's when the book "Implications of Evolution" was written. So your "error" just might be due to Kerkut's book being outdated.


Aah, the famous cite of Lewontin. Creations love that one. It still has nothing to do with Kerkut's third big error, claiming ToE is called correct only because there are no other possible explanations.

It actually does, since there are people who believe the same way. Also, it was specifically speaking of GTE, not STE. If you had at least looked at the differences between the two, and Kerkut's reason for the categories, you would realize that.


Then tell me how we do science, any science, without relying 100% on materialism.

Like I said, I snipped it for a reason.
With this I think I am out of this thread. I probably shouldn't have interacted as much as I did. Things haven't been so great with my Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, and the local weather has made the situation worse.

*He doesn't call it lazy in the quoted area. He does so earlier in the article.

HMS_Beagle
02-02-2014, 10:25 AM
Things haven't been so great with my Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, and the local weather has made the situation worse.

So sorry to hear that. Best wishes and hoping that your discomfort is just temporary so you will be able to continue to contribute to the forum.

Cerebrum123
02-02-2014, 10:26 AM
So sorry to hear that. Best wishes and hoping that your discomfort is just temporary so you will be able to continue to contribute to the forum.

Thanks. I am a moderator here, so I will be on fairly regularly. Right now though, I need a break from anything serious. I'm sure you understand. :teeth:

Jonathandavid
02-02-2014, 10:31 AM
Science does not, strictly, rely on materialism (or naturalism/physicalism/reductionism, whatever); it is possible to be strongly anti-materialist and do good science. Isaac Newton being one example.

Science relies on methodological materialism (usually: methodological naturalism). When Lewontin talks about the aim "to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations," he clearly refers to the methods of science, not a prescribed metaphysical idea that all scientists must believe in.

rwatts
02-02-2014, 11:13 AM
I like what you've done with your name, watts ... er, rwatts ... it's very slimming.Ahhh yes, lao tzu.


When I first joined TWeb all those years ago, I tried to use "rwatts", but the system would not let me. I attempted to use "wattsr", but again failed. So I ended up at "wattsr1". IIRC, I also attempted "rjw" without success.

This time, given the need for everyone to re-register, I attempted the "rwatts" and so here I am.

It's amazing how many folk get my name correct when they ask "What's your name?". I will sometimes reply "yes", only to be shown a very puzzled look. Only one requestor has ever gotten the joke, and that was last year.

Jorge
02-06-2014, 10:08 AM
You seem to be the only person on the web who offers up this 'two evolutions' idea.
Maybe that's because I'm the only person on the web who has thought about it (I don't believe that but it's possible). In any event, my idea is as clear as it is demonstrable. However, nothing may be clear or demonstrable to a person that has 'tuned-out'. Are you one of those?


Certainly no one with even a rudimentary understanding of science agrees with you (and posts about it). That doesn't bode well for your pet idea spreading very far.
If you say so. :shrug:



How would you do science without relying 100% on materialism? Can you offer any examples? Praying for your grant proposal to be funded doesn't count of course.
Your questions indicate a naive, rudimentary and prejudiced understanding of the subject. First you have to qualify the "science" that you speak of. Operational science is exactly the same for every person, be that person Atheist-Humanist, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian (of any type) or any other metaphysical position or worldview.

Examples: gravity operates the same for everyone; F=ma applies the same for everyone; E = mc2 is the same; sodium and chlorine combine in the same manner to form table salt (NaCl) and so on and so on. Are you getting any of this? I hope so. Finally, it is an observable, testable, demonstrable fact that allele frequencies change over time in all populations. THAT 'evolution' is science. I refer to that as "Evolution 1" and it is factual and the same for everyone.

Now let's look at "Evolution 2". Is it observable, testable and demonstrable that all extant species today emerged from a single unicellular ancestor that lived billions of years ago? No, of course not. Is it observable, testable and demonstrable that life of any type may emerge from inert matter? No, it is not!

Despite all efforts from countless scientists over centuries, life has never been observed to emerge from anything other than preexisting life. Before you get your panties bundled into a wad, abiogenesis is indeed a part of Evolution 2 (the Materialistic version of Evolution) since where else could life have come from? Thus, Evolution 2 is NOT science, despite the fanatical claims of its proponents. You wouldn't be one of those, would you? Evolution 2 is part of a belief system, not of proper science.

No charge for the lesson ... not this time. :read:

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
02-06-2014, 10:28 AM
Maybe that's because I'm the only person on the web who has thought about it

It's because those who are scientifically literate have thought about it and rejected it as the nonsense it is.


Now let's look at "Evolution 2". Is it observable, testable and demonstrable that all extant species today emerged from a single unicellular ancestor that lived billions of years ago? No, of course not. Is it observable, testable and demonstrable that life of any type may emerge from inert matter? No, it is not!

The evidence that all extant species today emerged from a single unicellular ancestor that lived billions of years ago is quite observable, testable, and demonstrable. That's all that science requires, not reproducing the actual event itself.

There are no such things as "operational" science and "historical' science. Those are nonsense terms invented by Creationists to try and muddy the waters and hide the fact that the Young Earth Creationist position has zero supporting scientific evidence. There is only science and it works the same way across the board.

Ken Ham just got spanked pretty hard for his silly "were you there?? did you see it??" inanity. Apparently you didn't get the memo.


Despite all efforts from countless scientists over centuries, life has never been observed to emerge from anything other than preexisting life. Before you get your panties bundled into a wad, abiogenesis is indeed a part of Evolution 2 (the Materialistic version of Evolution) since where else could life have come from? Thus, Evolution 2 is NOT science, despite the fanatical claims of its proponents.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us how to do science, any science, without relying on materialistic naturalism. I suspect I'll be waiting for a long time.

rwatts
02-06-2014, 12:09 PM
Evolution 2 is part of a belief system, not of proper science.


JorgeDon't you believe that sodium and chlorine atoms combine to make common salt, Jorge? I do. I also have evidence for it as well.

However, I have never actually observed sodium and chlorine atoms combine to make crystals of salt. Have you?

Jorge
02-07-2014, 04:00 AM
It's because those who are scientifically literate have thought about it and rejected it as the nonsense it is.



The evidence that all extant species today emerged from a single unicellular ancestor that lived billions of years ago is quite observable, testable, and demonstrable. That's all that science requires, not reproducing the actual event itself.

There are no such things as "operational" science and "historical' science. Those are nonsense terms invented by Creationists to try and muddy the waters and hide the fact that the Young Earth Creationist position has zero supporting scientific evidence. There is only science and it works the same way across the board.

Ken Ham just got spanked pretty hard for his silly "were you there?? did you see it??" inanity. Apparently you didn't get the memo.



I'm still waiting for you to tell us how to do science, any science, without relying on materialistic naturalism. I suspect I'll be waiting for a long time.

The above is the best you could come up with? Geesh!!! :no:

You obviously don't know what you're talking about and, on top of that, you are arrogant, close-minded and have stuck each of your index fingers so deeply into each ear that they're now touching each other. Have a nice day.

Jorge

Jorge
02-07-2014, 04:08 AM
Don't you believe that sodium and chlorine atoms combine to make common salt, Jorge? I do. I also have evidence for it as well.

However, I have never actually observed sodium and chlorine atoms combine to make crystals of salt. Have you?

After all this time you continue with your silliness, rwatts -- perhaps it's even gotten worse! No, I've never observed Na and Cl atoms combine to make salt but through various methods one may show that this is exactly what is taking place. Many things are not directly observable but may be indirectly "observed".

However, there is NO WAY - directly or indirectly - to observe abiogenesis PLUS numerous direct observations and proven science all point to the impossibility of abiogenesis. Yet, you continue, undeterred, to BELIEVE in abiogenesis. You and your kind have great FAITH, rwatts. I envy you - I wish that I had such faith. :blush:

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
02-07-2014, 06:25 AM
The above is the best you could come up with? Geesh!!! :no:

You obviously don't know what you're talking about and, on top of that, you are arrogant, close-minded and have stuck each of your index fingers so deeply into each ear that they're now touching each other. Have a nice day.

Jorge

You didn't address a single point I raised choosing instead to post nothing but personal insults. Thank you for the admission that your Creationist argument has failed miserably and for demonstrating your non-existent understanding of how science is done.

Thank you also for the very revealing look at your personality. I'll certainly consider that when dealing with you in the future.

Jorge
02-07-2014, 07:00 AM
You didn't address a single point I raised choosing instead to post nothing but personal insults. Thank you for the admission that your Creationist argument has failed miserably and for demonstrating your non-existent understanding of how science is done.

Thank you also for the very revealing look at your personality. I'll certainly consider that when dealing with you in the future.

Yeah ... sure thing, kiddo ... whatever you say. :ahem:

I only have one remaining question: might you, by chance, reside in Colorado?

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
02-07-2014, 07:15 AM
Yeah ... sure thing, kiddo ... whatever you say. :ahem:

I only have one remaining question: might you, by chance, reside in Colorado?

Jorge

Your insulting evasive non-answer is sitting there for everyone to read Jorge.

When you get to the bottom of a hole it's a good idea to quit digging.

JonF
02-07-2014, 11:25 AM
That's just Jorge. Once in a great while he'll try to support some YEC claim and get his clock thoroughly cleaned. (Ask him about his second law of thermodynamics.)

Once he's gone through that it'll take 2-3 years of snark before he'll try to engage again.

Roy
02-07-2014, 12:55 PM
I only have one remaining question: might you, by chance, reside in Colorado?Jorge probably wants to sell him some beachfront property.

Roy

Jorge
02-08-2014, 03:21 AM
Your insulting evasive non-answer is sitting there for everyone to read Jorge.

When you get to the bottom of a hole it's a good idea to quit digging.

You did not answer my simple question ... do you reside in Colorado?

Jorge

Jorge
02-08-2014, 03:24 AM
Jorge probably wants to sell him some beachfront property.

Roy

I'm sorry to see that your mental condition has significantly deteriorated since you last mentioned me, Roy. Try 1-800-GET-HELP and perhaps they may be able to assist you. I'll pray for your condition. :pray:

Jorge

Jorge
02-08-2014, 03:26 AM
That's just Jorge. Once in a great while he'll try to support some YEC claim and get his clock thoroughly cleaned. (Ask him about his second law of thermodynamics.)

Once he's gone through that it'll take 2-3 years of snark before he'll try to engage again.

"... clock thoroughly cleaned" ??? :stunned:

You've been sniffing glue again, haven't you! :sad:

Jorge

Roy
02-08-2014, 04:20 AM
Try 1-800-GET-HELP and perhaps they may be able to assist you.Maybe some-day Jorge will realise that I don't live in the US, and don't need to buy a burglar alarm anyway.

Roy

KingsGambit
02-08-2014, 04:27 AM
Maybe some-day Jorge will realise that I don't live in the US, and don't need to buy a burglar alarm anyway.

Roy

And there is presumably a correlation between the two?

shunyadragon
02-08-2014, 04:41 AM
And there is presumably a correlation between the two?

Yes!

JonF
02-08-2014, 05:23 AM
I rest my case.

HMS_Beagle
02-08-2014, 06:18 AM
How old is this Jorge character, about 12?

Can anything be done about his childish and distracting drive-by insults? It would be nice to maintain an adult level of discussion.

JonF
02-08-2014, 06:34 AM
How old is this Jorge character, about 12?
Mentally or physically?


Can anything be done about his childish and distracting drive-by insults? It would be nice to maintain an adult level of discussion.
Apparently not. He had a humungous number of posts over about ten years before the crash, almost all of them of the same stripe you see here. Being stupid isn't against the rules.

Catholicity
02-08-2014, 06:54 AM
How old is this Jorge character, about 12?

Can anything be done about his childish and distracting drive-by insults? It would be nice to maintain an adult level of discussion.

What JonF said about his mental Age.

And regarding the insults...we're afraid not. You never read ALL of the old Tweb did you? Jorge was our special one.

JonF
02-08-2014, 07:18 AM
And Socrates.

HMS_Beagle
02-08-2014, 08:59 AM
And regarding the insults...we're afraid not. You never read ALL of the old Tweb did you? Jorge was our special one.

OK, thank you for the background info. Seems to be an internet law that every village has its Jorge. :smile:

Jorge
02-08-2014, 10:11 AM
Maybe some-day Jorge will realise that I don't live in the US, and don't need to buy a burglar alarm anyway.

Roy

Maybe one day you will realize that I'm just yanking your
chain to get a rise out of you - that's all you're good for. :hehe:

Jorge

Jorge
02-08-2014, 10:14 AM
How old is this Jorge character, about 12?

Can anything be done about his childish and distracting drive-by insults? It would be nice to maintain an adult level of discussion.

Show me an adult (besides myself, of course)...
Oh, you meant YOURSELF ... hehehe ... ya could'a fooled me! :hehe:

By the way, I'm still waiting for your answer to my simple question.

Jorge

Jorge
02-08-2014, 10:18 AM
OK, thank you for the background info. Seems to be an internet law that every village has its Jorge. :smile:

Seriously, I'm here chuckling away as I read the posts of you dimwits (you know who you are :hehe: ). Perhaps if I swallow half-a-dozen sleeping pills to make myself really groggy, I'll slow down enough to think at your speed. :lmbo:

Now, where were we? Oh, yes ... do you reside in Colorado?

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
02-08-2014, 10:18 AM
I see the village Jorge is back with more content-free insults. :ahem:


I'm still waiting for your answer to my simple question.

I've been waiting a lot longer for you to answer mine.

How do we do science, any science, without relying on materialistic naturalism?

Jorge
02-08-2014, 10:25 AM
I see the village Jorge is back with more content-free insults. :ahem:



I've been waiting a lot longer for you to answer mine.

How do we do science, any science, without relying on materialistic naturalism?

I'll check, perhaps I'm still thinking of the "old" TWeb - the one that went poof. .... checking .... :read:

Jorge

Juvenal
02-08-2014, 10:25 AM
Click me (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=156)!

Outis
02-08-2014, 10:28 AM
How do we do science, any science, without relying on materialistic naturalism?

We do not rely on materialistic naturalism to do science. We rely on methodological naturalism.

Precision of terms is important.

HMS_Beagle
02-08-2014, 10:30 AM
Click me (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=156)!

I know I have that option, thanks. I believe in giving folks the benefit of the doubt so I'll give Jorge one more chance to behave like an adult. We'll see.

Carrikature
02-08-2014, 10:31 AM
I know I have that option, thanks. I believe in giving folks the benefit of the doubt so I'll give Jorge one more chance to behave like an adult. We'll see.

Pre-emptive strikes are quite useful. Saves you some hair.

HMS_Beagle
02-08-2014, 10:32 AM
We do not rely on materialistic naturalism to do science. We rely on methodological naturalism.

Precision of terms is important.

AFAIK they mean the same thing, but I could be wrong. Can you explain any significant differences? Thanks.

Outis
02-08-2014, 10:39 AM
AFAIK they mean the same thing, but I could be wrong. Can you explain any significant differences? Thanks.

Usually (at least in this context), naturalism is divided into metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. The first holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena, and rejects any proposed "spiritual" or "supernatural" reality. The second takes no position on any proposed reality of spiritual or supernatural phenomena, but does disregard them within the context of science.

Metaphysical naturalism is a generalized philosophical position. Methodological naturalism is specific to the context of science.

HMS_Beagle
02-08-2014, 10:41 AM
Usually (at least in this context), naturalism is divided into metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. The first holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena, and rejects any proposed "spiritual" or "supernatural" reality. The second takes no position on any proposed reality of spiritual or supernatural phenomena, but does disregard them within the context of science.

Metaphysical naturalism is a generalized philosophical position. Methodological naturalism is specific to the context of science.

OK, that makes sense. Thanks.

ETA: I used materialistic naturalism because of Jorge's claim that strict materialism hinders science. I'd still like him to explain how to do science without assuming strictly materialism.

Jorge
02-08-2014, 10:45 AM
I've been waiting a lot longer for you to answer mine.

How do we do science, any science, without relying on materialistic naturalism?

Just as I recollected, I HAD answered your question except that I used 'hard' words and concepts - mea culpa. I tried to make it easier to grasp by providing examples but no cigar - you missed the whole thing.

I had written:

Your questions indicate a naive, rudimentary and prejudiced understanding of the subject. First you have to qualify the "science" that you speak of. Operational science is exactly the same for every person, be that person Atheist-Humanist, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian (of any type) or any other metaphysical position or worldview.

Examples: gravity operates the same for everyone; F=ma applies the same for everyone; E = mc2 is the same; sodium and chlorine combine in the same manner to form table salt (NaCl) and so on and so on. Are you getting any of this? I hope so. Finally, it is an observable, testable, demonstrable fact that allele frequencies change over time in all populations. THAT 'evolution' is science. I refer to that as "Evolution 1" and it is factual and the same for everyone.

Now let's look at "Evolution 2". Is it observable, testable and demonstrable that all extant species today emerged from a single unicellular ancestor that lived billions of years ago? No, of course not. Is it observable, testable and demonstrable that life of any type may emerge from inert matter? No, it is not!

Despite all efforts from countless scientists over centuries, life has never been observed to emerge from anything other than preexisting life. Before you get your panties bundled into a wad, abiogenesis is indeed a part of Evolution 2 (the Materialistic version of Evolution) since where else could life have come from? Thus, Evolution 2 is NOT science, despite the fanatical claims of its proponents. You wouldn't be one of those, would you? Evolution 2 is part of a belief system, not of proper science.
.
.
Now, spelling it out so that you are able to understand -- you make the same blunder as most people, you define "science" in purely materialistic terms. In other words, by your definition ONLY Materialistic causes, effects and explanations comprise science and thus, by definition, you must use Materialistic Naturalism in order to do science. That is what is know as tautological ... an instance of circular reasoning - a logical fallacy. You hand me a bucket of white paint and ask me to paint the barn red (Hint: it can't be done).

Information theory, an area that I know something about, demolishes Materialism. Not only is information NOT mass or energy, but all indications are that information absolutely must have preceded manifestations of mass-energy including life and consciousness. 'Nuff said ...

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
02-08-2014, 11:02 AM
Just as I recollected, I HAD answered your question except that I used 'hard' words and concepts - mea culpa. I tried to make it easier to grasp by providing examples but no cigar - you missed the whole thing.

I had written:

Your questions indicate a naive, rudimentary and prejudiced understanding of the subject. First you have to qualify the "science" that you speak of. Operational science is exactly the same for every person, be that person Atheist-Humanist, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian (of any type) or any other metaphysical position or worldview.

Examples: gravity operates the same for everyone; F=ma applies the same for everyone; E = mc2 is the same; sodium and chlorine combine in the same manner to form table salt (NaCl) and so on and so on. Are you getting any of this? I hope so. Finally, it is an observable, testable, demonstrable fact that allele frequencies change over time in all populations. THAT 'evolution' is science. I refer to that as "Evolution 1" and it is factual and the same for everyone.

Now let's look at "Evolution 2". Is it observable, testable and demonstrable that all extant species today emerged from a single unicellular ancestor that lived billions of years ago? No, of course not. Is it observable, testable and demonstrable that life of any type may emerge from inert matter? No, it is not!

Despite all efforts from countless scientists over centuries, life has never been observed to emerge from anything other than preexisting life. Before you get your panties bundled into a wad, abiogenesis is indeed a part of Evolution 2 (the Materialistic version of Evolution) since where else could life have come from? Thus, Evolution 2 is NOT science, despite the fanatical claims of its proponents. You wouldn't be one of those, would you? Evolution 2 is part of a belief system, not of proper science.

Now, spelling it out so that you are able to understand -- you make the same blunder as most people, you define "science" in purely materialistic terms. In other words, by your definition ONLY Materialistic causes, effects and explanations comprise science and thus, by definition, you must use Materialistic Naturalism in order to do science. That is what is know as tautological ... an instance of circular reasoning - a logical fallacy. You hand me a bucket of white paint and ask me to paint the barn red (Hint: it can't be done).

Jorge

Jorge, cutting and pasting your earlier non-answer doesn't answer the question.

How do we do science, any science, without relying on materialistic naturalism?

It's obvious you have no answer and are just blowing smoke.


Information theory, an area that I know something about, demolishes Materialism. Not only is information NOT mass or energy, but all indications are that information absolutely must have preceded manifestations of mass-energy including life and consciousness. 'Nuff said ...

I am well aware of Creationist equivocations over the definition of "information". In information theory the term "information" has a very specific definition. It is also impossible for "information" to exist without a physical manifestation of mass/energy.

What is your definition of "information" as it applies to life and consciousness? Be specific.

klaus54
02-08-2014, 11:46 AM
If biological evolution is a religion then so is meteorology. Any TMs out there? (Theistic Meteorologists)

All scientists forsake not their meeting together -- so maybe the anti-evolutionaries are onto something?

Jorge
02-08-2014, 01:30 PM
Jorge, cutting and pasting your earlier non-answer doesn't answer the question.

How do we do science, any science, without relying on materialistic naturalism?

It's obvious you have no answer and are just blowing smoke.

Yet you hurl accusations at me of 'this and that'!
Your intellectual integrity leaves everything to be desired.
I ask again, do you reside in Colorado?



I am well aware of Creationist equivocations over the definition of "information". In information theory the term "information" has a very specific definition. It is also impossible for "information" to exist without a physical manifestation of mass/energy.

What is your definition of "information" as it applies to life and consciousness? Be specific.

"Creationist equivocations" ... good grief!!! :no:

I cannot answer that question at this time. I've co-authored one book on information theory and am presently working on an extension - the first 'Complete' Information Theory that would exist. What I mean is, I know of no way to answer your question without a dissertation. I can, however, inform you that the common notions of information floating around, such as Shannon, Kolmogorov-Chaitin-Solomonoff (Algorithmic) and others, miss the mark in the 'complete' sense but are adequate in a restricted sense.

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
02-08-2014, 02:45 PM
Yet you hurl accusations at me of 'this and that'!
Your intellectual integrity leaves everything to be desired.
I ask again, do you reside in Colorado?

Further violations of campus decorum by you will be reported.


Participant Anonymity/Privacy (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/faq.php?faq=theologywebdecorum#faq_decorumanon)

In conjunction with our Privacy Statement, please respect the anonymity/privacy of other posters on TheologyWeb. Any member may choose to keep their personal information, such as name and location, from being published on this forum, even if such information is common knowledge elsewhere. Additional personal information, such as occupation, training, background, etc., may be removed if it is not easily obtainable public information elsewhere, can only be referenced by blatantly violating a request for the privacy of a member’s name, or is just generally disruptive to the forum. Once a member invokes this privilege, his reasons for doing so are just as private as the information itself. This section, like the Privacy Statement, can be over-ruled in cases of need to protect TheologyWeb, its members, or other people and/or organizations from intentional or unintentional interference, harm, or deception.

Meanwhile your lack of intellectual integrity becomes obvious.


"Creationist equivocations" ... good grief!!! :no:

I cannot answer that question at this time. I've co-authored one book on information theory and am presently working on an extension - the first 'Complete' Information Theory that would exist. What I mean is, I know of no way to answer your question without a dissertation. I can, however, inform you that the common notions of information floating around, such as Shannon, Kolmogorov-Chaitin-Solomonoff (Algorithmic) and others, miss the mark in the 'complete' sense but are adequate in a restricted sense.

Jorge

Exactly as expected you make a weak excuse to avoid answering the question. It's all part of Creationist Bafflegab 101: never define your terms so therefore you can't be called on them, always stay as vague as possible.

Meanwhile you still haven't answered the original question:

How do we do science, any science, without relying on materialistic naturalism?

Christianbookworm
02-08-2014, 02:49 PM
What about the Christian scientists in the past that relied on the creation being predictable?

Catholicity
02-08-2014, 02:58 PM
Further violations of campus decorum by you will be reported.



Meanwhile your lack of intellectual integrity becomes obvious.



Exactly as expected you make a weak excuse to avoid answering the question. It's all part of Creationist Bafflegab 101: never define your terms so therefore you can't be called on them, always stay as vague as possible.

Meanwhile you still haven't answered the original question:

How do we do science, any science, without relying on materialistic naturalism?
Just FYI did you miss the excitement when we all found out just HOW Jorge got his so called Ph.D.?

Next time he asks where you live just ask him how he got his so called diploma. It works real well.

HMS_Beagle
02-08-2014, 03:00 PM
What about the Christian scientists in the past that relied on the creation being predictable?

What about them?

Relying on the observed laws of nature to be predictable is naturalism no matter how the original laws arose.

How would you do science if the laws weren't predictable but changed on the capriciousness of some supernatural entity?

klaus54
02-08-2014, 03:01 PM
What about the Christian scientists in the past that relied on the creation being predictable?

So, what's your point? The predictability of nature is fundamental to scientific method whether one is an ontological naturalist or just plain methodological naturalist. The former is a philosophical position, the latter an operational one. It's also the reason why Christians shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the clear revelation of nature in favor of a particular flavor of Biblical interpretation.

HMS_Beagle
02-08-2014, 03:05 PM
Just FYI did you miss the excitement when we all found out just HOW Jorge got his so called Ph.D.?

Next time he asks where you live just ask him how he got his so called diploma. It works real well.

Over at Panda's Thumb I recall reading about some Creationist who bought an online PhD to pad his credentials on the dust jacket of a book he was writing.

That was this Jorge??

Too funny! :lol::lol::lol:

Juvenal
02-08-2014, 03:15 PM
What about the Christian scientists in the past that relied on the creation being predictable?

Dear CBW,

That's the apologetic, but it doesn't hold up well on closer examination. Miracles aren't what any of us would call predictable, and without them, Christianity cannot exist.

In practice, Copernicus was rightly afraid to publish before his death, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake with his tongue pierced to prevent him from speaking his heretical beliefs that the stars were distant suns, Galileo was forced to his knees to "abjure and detest" his heliocentrism by the same Cardinal who slew Bruno, Newton himself abdicated responsibility for describing the motion of the planets in favor of angels guiding them in their course. That last was a problem left to LaPlace to solve, declaring, "I had no need for that hypothesis."

What we find looking back at the history of science are great leaps occurring precisely when and where religions were weakest, at the borders of empire and at times when great religions were in retreat. The Renaissance, for instance, took advantage of newly available classical sources left behind after the retreat of the Islamic empire from southern Europe. Today's National Academy of Science here in the U.S., a collection of what are arguably the greatest modern scientists in the world, located in a country that is better than 80 percent Christian has been surveyed repeatedly, and consistently found to be over 90 percent non-theist.

As ever, Jesse

Juvenal
02-08-2014, 03:17 PM
Just FYI did you miss the excitement when we all found out just HOW Jorge got his so called Ph.D.?

I agree with Roy that Beagle is a former TWeb member, and well aware of Jorge's cardboard diploma.

Christy
02-08-2014, 03:58 PM
"Philosophical" Naturalism, if it's the same as Scientism, already sounds self-contradicting. On the other hand, I found this website made by Christian biologists, that I found pretty informative, http://biologos.org/

Outis
02-08-2014, 04:05 PM
"Philosophical" Naturalism, if it's the same as Scientism

Philosophical naturalism is not the same as Scientism. Indeed, "Scientism" is largely used as a pejorative against certain views, rather than as a valid descriptor of those views.

shunyadragon
02-09-2014, 04:54 AM
What about the Christian scientists in the past that relied on the creation being predictable?

How far in the past are you going? In reality relying on Creation being predicable (falsifiable) failed miserably whether 1000 years ago nor today among AIG proponents.

shunyadragon
02-09-2014, 04:59 AM
"Philosophical" Naturalism, if it's the same as Scientism, already sounds self-contradicting. On the other hand, I found this website made by Christian biologists, that I found pretty informative, http://biologos.org/

The dominant philosophy in science today is 'Methodological Naturalism.' Philosophical Naturalism is Naturalism believed by some atheists. Scientism is another meaningless stone thrown at science by some theists. If Christian Biologist are informative and relevant they are relying in Methodological Naturalism and scientific methods of falsification in the physical world, unfortunately some Christian scientist rely on selective parsing of evidence to create a warped view of science to justify their theological beliefs.

What you cited in Ken Ham's nonsense and not science. In his AIG pledge and the debate with Nye he unequivocally affirms that any science that conflicts with his literal interpretation of the Bible must be rejected.

Jorge
02-09-2014, 05:26 AM
Just FYI did you miss the excitement when we all found out just HOW Jorge got his so called Ph.D.?

Next time he asks where you live just ask him how he got his so called diploma. It works real well.

Whatever your age may be, you STILL haven't learned to keep your
mouth shut when you don't know what you're talking about.
Furthermore, you're practicing the ad hominem strategy - shame on you!

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
02-09-2014, 07:18 AM
Furthermore, you're practicing the ad hominem strategy - shame on you!

Jorge

LOL! This from the same guy who just "answered" a question about his claims with


You obviously don't know what you're talking about and, on top of that, you are arrogant, close-minded and have stuck each of your index fingers so deeply into each ear that they're now touching each other. Have a nice day.

Jorge

It's a pity for Jorge the Olympics don't offer a gold medal in hypocrisy. :ahem:

Christy
05-15-2014, 12:46 PM
Scientism is a valid description of the view that natural science is the only true science, which I think some atheists seem to believe: http://biologos.org/blog/series/monopolizing-knowledge There actually have been atheists who claim philosophy isn't a good way to discover things about reality because it's not science like natural sciences such as biology.

Christy
05-15-2014, 12:48 PM
The dominant philosophy in science today is 'Methodological Naturalism.' Philosophical Naturalism is Naturalism believed by some atheists. Scientism is another meaningless stone thrown at science by some theists. If Christian Biologist are informative and relevant they are relying in Methodological Naturalism and scientific methods of falsification in the physical world, unfortunately some Christian scientist rely on selective parsing of evidence to create a warped view of science to justify their theological beliefs.

What you cited in Ken Ham's nonsense and not science. In his AIG pledge and the debate with Nye he unequivocally affirms that any science that conflicts with his literal interpretation of the Bible must be rejected.

Huh? Where did I site Ken Ham?

Sorry to resurrect this thread after three months and 6 days :blush:

Jorge
05-15-2014, 01:45 PM
Huh? Where did I site Ken Ham?

Sorry to resurrect this thread after three months and 6 days :blush:


"Ken Ham" ...
Yeah, their goal is to discredit and they employ shady tactics to do so.

The title of this thread is "Is the Theory of Evolution a Religion?" My answer had been, No, it isn't.
But to many it is undoubtedly a PART of their religious position, be that position
Atheistic-Humanistic, Deistic, or even Theistic. That's really all that needs to be said on this.

Ultimately it doesn't matter, 'these people' (they know who they are) will wait until
memories fade and then they'll dust off the cobwebs and repeat their nonsense all
over again - just as R06 did to start this thread. Do 'these people' really think that
some of us aren't noticing their shenanigans?

Jorge

miked570
05-19-2014, 08:45 AM
The number of errors in your mini-dissertation above are LEGION-SQUARED! I'm leaving it at that.

of course you are.

in fact, in the short time I've been here, I've learned that in nearly every case, you do the same - make bombastic proclamation re: the errors of others, pretending that you are above actually explaining what they are.

Pretty funny that you seem to think that sort of snake oil works on non-pew warmers.




Nah ... I've much better things to do with my time. Speaking of which, I've been working on Information Theory for quite some time now (but a good chunk remaining). Stay tuned ... I'll let you guys know when I'm ready to publish.

Jorge

I'm sure it will be as meaningless and self-aggrandizing as your posts here.

Which is to say, utterly worthless. Which vanity press are going with?

klaus54
05-19-2014, 10:37 AM
The number of errors in your mini-dissertation above are LEGION-SQUARED! I'm leaving it at that.


Jorge's distortions and non-answers are named Legion for they are many.

K54