Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

[Keith&Co.]

....But it does not make sense to split off 'atheistic evolution' from creationism unless you refer to every science as atheistic.

I'm saying there is atheistic evolution and theistic evolution -

I get that.
And i'm saying you're wrong to do that (save only that you refer to every single science as atheistic). Not only wrong, but betraying significant ignorance.
There's the scientific theory, there's the "let's credit god" apology, and there's 'nothing-but-god creationism.

not that evolution is always atheistic - but I rejected Christian theistic evolution and went straight to atheistic evolution.

No, no you did not. If you referred to it as atheistic evolution, you were still giving credit to creationist attempts to control the debate. Like their idea thsst you could not study evolution without abandoning God completely. This is wrong. This is their false claim.

All science is neutral on the supernatural, or it isn't science.

For color theory chart there's the light filter chart and pigment-based chart, right?
Not atheistic color chart versus stained-glass-windows color chart.

 

[excreationist]

I'm saying there is atheistic evolution and theistic evolution -

I get that.
And i'm saying you're wrong to do that (save only that you refer to every single science as atheistic). Not only wrong, but betraying significant ignorance.
There's the scientific theory, there's the "let's credit god" apology, and there's 'nothing-but-god creationism.

Well I was a high school student - I didn't know much about valid arguments, etc. At that time I didn't use the term "atheistic evolution" but I was focusing on YEC vs unguided evolution (with no intelligent force). I was aware of (intelligently) guided evolution but I didn't seriously consider it at that time.

not that evolution is always atheistic - but I rejected Christian theistic evolution and went straight to atheistic evolution.

No, no you did not. If you referred to it as atheistic evolution, you were still giving credit to creationist attempts to control the debate. Like their idea thsst you could not study evolution without abandoning God completely. This is wrong. This is their false claim.

Well I didn't claim to not be wrong at the time.

All science is neutral on the supernatural, or it isn't science.

Though for some reason I think scientists tend to be less likely to believe in the supernatural....

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well I was a high school student - I didn't know much about valid arguments, etc. At that time I didn't use the term "atheistic evolution" but I was focusing on YEC vs unguided evolution (with no intelligent force). I was aware of (intelligently) guided evolution but I didn't seriously consider it at that time.

not that evolution is always atheistic - but I rejected Christian theistic evolution and went straight to atheistic evolution.

No, no you did not. If you referred to it as atheistic evolution, you were still giving credit to creationist attempts to control the debate. Like their idea thsst you could not study evolution without abandoning God completely. This is wrong. This is their false claim.

Well I didn't claim to not be wrong at the time.

All science is neutral on the supernatural, or it isn't science.

Though for some reason I think scientists tend to be less likely to believe in the supernatural....

They believe. They just don't cite them at work.

And i don't care if you used 'atheistic evolution' then. You're using it now.
You really should know better.
Atheists tha t accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.
Theists thst accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.

Creationists that want their victims too scared to learn the science call it atheistic evolution...

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes, every single scientific throry lacks a belief in anything supernatural.
But it does not make sense to split off 'atheistic evolution' from creationism unless you refer to every science as atheistic.
'Recent findings in atheistic geology...'
'A professor of atheistic biology...'
'A lot of atheistic computing nerds scrambled for Y2K...

Reminds me of a guided tour at Mammoth Caves National Park. The ranger began by saying that there are many stories about how these caves were formed. it seemed odd until I realized we were in Kentucky. He then went on to say he was giving the scientific account. He didn't say he was giving the atheistic geological account. No doubt there were plenty of religionists about who believed the caves were formed when a 600 year old man built a magic boat on orders from a magic sky voice.

Like the Brooklyn alphabet: fuckin' A, fuckin' B, fuckin' C...
Atheistic geology, atheistic geography, atheistic anthropology, atheistic paleontology, atheistic electricity...

I mean, no one divides it as Thor-throwing fulminology versus atheistic fulminology. It's just, "[ZAPP! Rrrrrrrumble!] That was a good one!"

 

[excreationist]

They believe. They just don't cite them at work.

And i don't care if you used 'atheistic evolution' then. You're using it now.
You really should know better.
Atheists tha t accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.
Theists thst accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.

Creationists that want their victims too scared to learn the science call it atheistic evolution...

There is theistic evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
What do you call it if it is evolution that isn't theistic? (non-theistic evolution?)

"Theists that accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution"

Then why is there a Wikipedia article called "theistic evolution"?

In the "external links" there is a (non-working) link for:
Spectrum of Creation Beliefs From Flat Earthism to Atheistic Evolutionism, including Theistic Evolution

 

[Keith&Co.]

They believe. They just don't cite them at work.

And i don't care if you used 'atheistic evolution' then. You're using it now.
You really should know better.
Atheists tha t accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.
Theists thst accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.

Creationists that want their victims too scared to learn the science call it atheistic evolution...

There is theistic evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
What do you call it if it is evolution that isn't theistic? (non-theistic evolution?)

Science.

"Theists that accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution"

Then why is there a Wikipedia article called "theistic evolution"?

Theistic evolution is not called that becuse theists believe in it.
Rather, it is evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts.

In the "external links" there is a (non-working) link for:
Spectrum of Creation Beliefs From Flat Earthism to Atheistic Evolutionism, including Theistic Evolution

Big whoop.
It's still a stupid term to use, a stupid distinction to make, and a stupid practice for anyone who is not trying to villify science.

 

[excreationist]

Theistic evolution is not called that because theists believe in it.
Rather, it is evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts.

So "theistic evolution" is roughly "evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts".... what about evolutionary theory that explicitly involves no divine action?

....It's still a stupid term to use, a stupid distinction to make, and a stupid practice for anyone who is not trying to villify science.

I think it is an important distinction to make between guided evolution and naturalistic evolution... in fact I've created threads on that topic.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Theistic evolution is not called that because theists believe in it.
Rather, it is evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts.

So "theistic evolution" is roughly "evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts".... what about evolutionary theory that explicitly involves no divine action?

....It's still a stupid term to use, a stupid distinction to make, and a stupid practice for anyone who is not trying to villify science.

I think it is an important distinction to make between guided evolution and naturalistic evolution... in fact I've created threads on that topic.

Back in the day YECs were all about "special creation." Yours is just "special evolution," evolution by divine fiat. It's dopey stuff, there isn't any such thing.

 

[excreationist]

....I think it is an important distinction to make between guided evolution and naturalistic evolution... in fact I've created threads on that topic.

Back in the day YECs were all about "special creation." Yours is just "special evolution," evolution by divine fiat. It's dopey stuff, there isn't any such thing.

My belief is that an intelligent force started with some life forms (like chameleons and butterflies and flowers) and then generated a plausible evolutionary history for the DNA (and geology, etc). So it appears that evolution was naturalistic and happened over millions of years. Though I think our current simulation server has only been explicitly simulating our world for a relatively short amount of time. The idea may be dopey but perhaps some of the specifics are quite original....

 

[ideologyhunter]

Back in 2009, when this site was called freeratio, a member who went by jonJ posted this, on the topic of needing a god to understand the universe:

More generally, how can postulating a mysterious unknowable intangible extra-terrestrial being of infinite power actually explain anything? At best you can only go from: "I don't know how it happened" to "God did it, so I don't know how it happened."

I was going to paraphrase his thought in my own little post, but he said it with such precision that he deserves the attribution.

 

[abaddon]

At best you can only go from: "I don't know how it happened" to "God did it, so I don't know how it happened."

Or from "I don't know how it happened" to "a powerful alien engineer did it, so I don't know how it happened [but that a Mind might have done it gives me solace]".

The maneuver doesn't seem to only be about explaining things. The pay-off is the solace, not the explanatory power.

 

[excreationist]

Back in 2009, when this site was called freeratio, a member who went by jonJ posted this, on the topic of needing a god to understand the universe:

More generally, how can postulating a mysterious unknowable intangible extra-terrestrial being of infinite power actually explain anything? At best you can only go from: "I don't know how it happened" to "God did it, so I don't know how it happened."

I was going to paraphrase his thought in my own little post, but he said it with such precision that he deserves the attribution.

The reason I think I'm probably in a simulation has nothing to do with evolution - it is partly due to Elon Musk's reasoning and many personal experiences like receiving a sealed upside down Bible within days of reading another upside down for the first time (to try and annoy God to get him to poison me - to use that as evidence that the hospital is trying to poison me)



It was a cheap but deluxe 2011 NIV with colour maps and a dictionary, and red text for Jesus' words. Some of the red is much lighter than others (a second issue). And John 7:53-8:11 is in black italics - meaning that Jesus didn't say it. The section says:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+7:53&version=NIV

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

​

It is right before the text - not just in the footnotes.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+john+5%3A7-8&version=NIV
Some Fundies would have a problem with 1 John 5:7-8 in the 2011 NIV... unlike the KJV it doesn't fit the trinity which the NIV footnote says "not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century".

The regular and large print Bibles at my church (see post #62) are all 2011 NIV Bibles as well so they have that note about John 7:53-8:11 as well - even though the church is very conservative and doesn't allow the ordination of women, etc.

Though like I've said, "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations". For me I think it would usually be seen to be coincidences - including those two songs that caused me to stop gassing myself.

 

[DBT]

Pattern recognition sometimes works against us. Percival Lowell, for instance, saw canals on mars (not only him). The more he looked, the more canals he saw.

 

[sdelsolray]

The reason I think I'm probably in a simulation has nothing to do with evolution - it is partly due to Elon Musk's reasoning and many personal experiences like receiving a sealed upside down Bible within days of reading another upside down for the first time (to try and annoy God to get him to poison me - to use that as evidence that the hospital is trying to poison me)
...

Yikes!

 

[excreationist]

Pattern recognition sometimes works against us. Percival Lowell, for instance, saw canals on mars (not only him). The more he looked, the more canals he saw.

So they thought that things that looked like canals were canals.... a more severe example of finding non-existent patterns is from A Beautiful Mind:

(go to 57 seconds in)

 

[DBT]

Seeing patterns where patterns don't actually exist can be somewhat problematic.

 

[excreationist]

Seeing patterns where patterns don't actually exist can be somewhat problematic.

The technical term seems to be "Apophenia"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

 

[Keith&Co.]

So "theistic evolution" is roughly "evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts".... what about evolutionary theory that explicitly involves no divine action?

Once more, science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA.
It states 'This is what happened.' It cannot state whether or not a deity was involved in making it happen.

An ATHEIST theory would specifically exclude divine action. Science doesn't do that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So "theistic evolution" is roughly "evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts".... what about evolutionary theory that explicitly involves no divine action?

Once more, science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA.
It states 'This is what happened.' It cannot state whether or not a deity was involved in making it happen.

An ATHEIST theory would specifically exclude divine action. Science doesn't do that.

A creationist or someone into woo or magic or supernature or some other "untestable" claim might say to a scientist, "I believe in a god and god is something that cannot be tested for." The dispassionate scientist might likely respond, "That's interesting. How do you suppose we can test your claim using the scientific method?"

I don't think religion or woo or supernature of magic or any such claimed phenomenon is anti-science. But certainly many of the people who believe in these things are very, very anti-science. And that makes scientific sense and can be explored using the scientific method by simply testing for scientific literacy in an adherent.

I would feel quite threatened and be afraid of something as powerful and revealing as scientific progress if I didn't understand it. It would be as if people were speaking in a different language, one that I cannot even begin to understand, let alone use to communicate. And that's how science is for many people.

 

[atrib]

....I think it is an important distinction to make between guided evolution and naturalistic evolution... in fact I've created threads on that topic.

Back in the day YECs were all about "special creation." Yours is just "special evolution," evolution by divine fiat. It's dopey stuff, there isn't any such thing.

My belief is that an intelligent force started with some life forms (like chameleons and butterflies and flowers) and then generated a plausible evolutionary history for the DNA (and geology, etc). So it appears that evolution was naturalistic and happened over millions of years. Though I think our current simulation server has only been explicitly simulating our world for a relatively short amount of time. The idea may be dopey but perhaps some of the specifics are quite original....

What you believe is not important (except perhaps to you). What you can demonstrate through evidence and reason is important. Simply repeating what you believe, instead of what you can actually support with evidence and reason, is not going to convince anyone. It is merely preaching.