Is science 'anti-God'? Really?

[phank]

I think it's fair to ask for a clear test procedure.

But as you've been told over and over, a "species" is a taxonomical, not a biological, concept. Even the fairly common notion of a species as being a population of interbreeding organisms includes the fact that often two individuals within that population can't do so successfully - there's an element of ring species within the population.

Your entire demand here is to discover bright lines of distinction where in reality they do not exist. So you either recognize that your demand is based on a faulty concept, or you apply some inappropriate test and get meaningless results. Your choice.

[ZackMartin]

And this brings us to a larger picture of religion - no two people share exactly the same set of beliefs. There are over 30,000 Christian sects in the US alone, which means there are over 30,000 differences in the detail of belief considered large enough to force a schism and branch off a new sect. And STILL, within each sect are smaller individual differences. The bible uses the same word ("God") to refer to what are very clearly drastically different personalities, as seen by a changing culture over millennia. The common denominator seems to be, where there is no physical referent, any sort of belief is as untethered and free to vary as any other. Referring to all of these envisioned personalities by the same name is confusing - kind of like a village where everyone has the same name, except in the village you can specify which individual you mean by pointing, whereas with a hypothetical supernatural entity you can't.

I use a different approach. I would focus on the philosophical essentials of belief in God (e.g. is God all-powerful or not? does God exist inside or outside of time? is God immortal or mortal? created or uncreated? does God have a beginning or is God beginningless? all-knowing or not? all-good or not? etc.), rather than questions like "does God approve of dancing? does God want us to worship on Saturday or Sunday? what does God think of homosexuality? does God want us to be capitalists or communists or something else? which is truly God's Word, the Quran or the Bible? etc". The former set of questions get to the (claimed) God's essential nature, as a question of philosophy of religion and/or natural theology. The latter set of questions, even though they involve God, are really a different set of religious issues. Looking at it this way, there are far less than 30,000 different philosophical beliefs about the nature of God. Even completely different religions often have very similar views of God - the Jewish and Islamic views have a lot in common, even as they disagree widely about many other religious issues.

Zack

[magellan004]

But as you've been told over and over, a "species" is a taxonomical, not a biological, concept. Even the fairly common notion of a species as being a population of interbreeding organisms includes the fact that often two individuals within that population can't do so successfully - there's an element of ring species within the population.

Your entire demand here is to discover bright lines of distinction where in reality they do not exist. So you either recognize that your demand is based on a faulty concept, or you apply some inappropriate test and get meaningless results. Your choice.

Not at all. All I am asking is for an evolutionist to back up a claim. If someone makes a claim such as ‘This organism belongs to a new species’ or ‘This is an example of speciation’ then they surely must have a test that led them to that conclusion.

For the concept of Species to be scientific it must be testable. There must be a situation where we can conclude ‘Yes, this organism belongs to a new species.’ The test does not have to lead to a YES/NO conclusion in all cases. Just in some cases.

There is a world of difference between:
A. ‘The test must be able to yield a result of YES in some cases’ and
B. The test must yield a result of either YES or NO in ALL cases.
We are not talking about B. Science does not deal with B’s.

Take an example of Boiling Water.
Is there a test that can yield a result/conclusion of ‘Yes, the water boiled’? We don’t have to always get a yes/no answer. There may be reasons why the concept of boiling is ‘fuzzy around the edges’:- fluctuating air pressure, impurities. It does not matter. The important thing is that there is a test that can lead to ‘YES’ in some circumstances.

Is there a place for personal judgement? Does it matter how many people agree?
Let’s say every test we have for boiling water involves someone making a personal judgement. ‘Look at the thermometer and make a judgement about the water.’ That is nonsense. That is not a scientific test. Because other people might agree that the water is boiling does not magically render the test scientific.

The notion of Personal Judgement in testing is antithetical to science.

When it comes to a test of Species the fact that the definition or the concept is fuzzy at the edges is a red-herring. If people make the claim then either the claim is based on scientific testing or it is based on a personal judgement. All we need is a test that will yield a YES result in some circumstances, without the need for personal judgement.

Here is an example of a possible test for species that is clear, self-evident and does not rely on personal judgement:

Take a random sample of 20 animals and put them in a paddock of grass. Place the organism to be tested in the paddock. Observe the animals for 20 days. If the test organism does not have a child in 20 days then the organism belongs to a new species.’

No one could argue with that. It is given as an example of a test that is clear and unambiguous’.

Here is a test that is useless:

Take an unspecified number of unspecified animals from an unspecified source and put them in a paddock of grass. Please the organism to be tested in the paddock. Observe the animals for an unspecified length of time. If the test organism does not get on well with the other animals then the organism belongs to a new species.’

Here is another useless ‘test’:

Take a random sample of 20 animals and put them in a paddock of grass. Please the organism to be tested in the paddock. Observe the animals. If the test organism seems different to all the other animals then the organism belongs to a new species.’

That is not a test because it involves personal judgement.

So – let me ask again. Can you cite any test of species or speciation?

Note: If you want to argue that the test necessarily involves personal judgement then you have to accept other tests that involve personal judgement – for example test in astrology.

Magellan

[Catholicity]

So – let me ask again. Can you cite any test of species or speciation?

Wow when you've found your brain stem let us know. At this point we aren't sure that you don't forget to breathe daily.

[phank]

Species is a flexible concept, therefore god exists. I like it!

[pancreasman]

The fact that 'species' is fuzzy concept and MUST be even within YEC land has been explained ad nauseum to our young padawan. Now we're just giving him the attention he so craves. This thread was doing fine without him and I ask Magellan to either stay on topic or vacate the premises.

[Catholicity]

The fact that 'species' is fuzzy concept and MUST be even within YEC land has been explained ad nauseum to our young padawan. Now we're just giving him the attention he so craves. This thread was doing fine without him and I ask Magellan to either stay on topic or vacate the premises.

I think that magellan is even an embarrasment to the yec crowd

[rogue06]

I think that magellan is even an embarrasment to the yec crowd

Pretty much. Several have expressed disdain at his inanities at various times. About the only one who cheers him on (but only rarely) is Jorge.

[magellan004]

The fact that 'species' is fuzzy concept and MUST be even within YEC land has been explained ad nauseum to our young padawan. Now we're just giving him the attention he so craves. This thread was doing fine without him and I ask Magellan to either stay on topic or vacate the premises.

I am trying to find out if Species is a scientific concept (that means it is testable) . Species is central to evolution theory which many claim is anti-god. If we can determine that species is not scientific then we can say that discussion of evolution has nothing to do with this thread.

I know you want to pretend that the matter is settled - assume evolution is science. I want to examine that assumption. I want to do so logically - by seeing if evolution offers concepts that are testable.

I also know that you are happy to bide Phank telling us all ad-nauseum that religion is unscientific. You also have a curious penchant for people who confuse insults for discussion.

This is what I propose. We discuss and examine those areas of 'science' that are potentially anti-god. For example if someone claims that homeopathy is anti-god then we examine and discuss that issue. I also generously offer to participate in the discussions without insulting anybody - provided that you make it clear that insults from any and all play no part in your thread.

If it suits your emotional state to ban me - that's fine also.

Magellan

[pancreasman]

I am trying to find out if Species is a scientific concept (that means it is testable) . Species is central to evolution theory which many claim is anti-god. If we can determine that species is not scientific then we can say that discussion of evolution has nothing to do with this thread.

I know you want to pretend that the matter is settled - assume evolution is science. I want to examine that assumption. I want to do so logically - by seeing if evolution offers concepts that are testable.

I also know that you are happy to bide Phank telling us all ad-nauseum that religion is unscientific. You also have a curious penchant for people who confuse insults for discussion.

This is what I propose. We discuss and examine those areas of 'science' that are potentially anti-god. For example if someone claims that homeopathy is anti-god then we examine and discuss that issue. I also generously offer to participate in the discussions without insulting anybody - provided that you make it clear that insults from any and all play no part in your thread.

If it suits your emotional state to ban me - that's fine also.

Magellan

Find it out in another thread. Last polite request. You have been answered numerous times.