Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is the Theory of Evolution a religion?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    "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/

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Christy View Post
      "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.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
        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.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Christy View Post
          "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.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-09-2014, 07:02 AM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
            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

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              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

              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #97
                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.
                Last edited by Christy; 05-15-2014, 02:53 PM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  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
                  Last edited by Christy; 05-15-2014, 02:56 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Christy View Post
                    Huh? Where did I site Ken Ham?

                    Sorry to resurrect this thread after three months and 6 days

                    "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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      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?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jorge
                        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
                        Last edited by klaus54; 05-19-2014, 12:40 PM. Reason: jorge quote

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                        48 responses
                        135 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Sparko
                        by Sparko
                         
                        Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                        16 responses
                        74 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post shunyadragon  
                        Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                        6 responses
                        47 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post shunyadragon  
                        Working...
                        X