Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Subduction Zone]

I used to do a lot of reading on this kind of stuff because it totally fascinated me. I probably had the same Houdini book.
Before she died, my Nana and I actually made a similar arrangement to the one Houdini and his wife made. Our word was "Wowie Doo-doo." (Something she used to say.) And if it turned out she couldn't convey a message to me in word form, she promised that she would grab me by the collar, like she used to do to us kids on a cold day and tell us to zip our coats up. I figured that would be noticeable.

She's been gone for 7 years now. She hasn't shown up yet to grab my collar, nor did she show up the two times my mother and I visited with a psychic, just for fun. I guess I'll keep waiting.

I got a shock one day when my mother called me from "the other side". She had passed away but I got a cell phone call that said "Mom". Turned out to be my brother. The phone number had been in the family for so long he decided to keep it. But that did cause me to jump when I first saw that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I got a shock one day when my mother called me from "the other side". She had passed away but I got a cell phone call that said "Mom". Turned out to be my brother. The phone number had been in the family for so long he decided to keep it. But that did cause me to jump when I first saw that.

Close one! That would be pretty freaky.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Do you really think God did not know exactly what he was doing when he created Satan. Of course He knew. Same thing with Eve. Do you honestly think God did not know exactly what was going to happen to the apple in the garden with naked woman prancing about? Of course He knew.

I'm not afraid of Satan. People only take away from you what you let them. So don't let them!

I'm more afraid of the theocracy taking over the government as described by Bill Cooper in this video (3:30 mark onward):

God did not ‘create Satan’!
Do parents have ‘thieves’ for children? Or do the children later become thieves by the choices they make?
All intelligent creations have free will, even when created perfect. We can make any choice we want...and we’ll reap the consequences, good or bad.
The Devil made himself such (Devil means slanderer), by dwelling on bad thoughts.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No. The only presumption science makes about gods is that gods do not exist.

Thank you, ecco. I’m glad someone finally admitted it. Jose Fly intimated to me that evolutionary science doesn’t make any presumption like that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thank you, ecco. I’m glad someone finally admitted it. Jose Fly intimated to me that evolutionary science doesn’t make any presumption like that.

Because it's true. @ecco is mistaken.....science does not make any inferences about gods one way or the other.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Thank you, ecco. I’m glad someone finally admitted it. Jose Fly intimated to me that evolutionary science doesn’t make any presumption like that.

It is better to say that scientists ignore faith based religious beliefs when it comes to science. Scientists are looking for testable hypotheses and empirical observations which simply aren't coming from the creationist camp.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Thank you, ecco. I’m glad someone finally admitted it. Jose Fly intimated to me that evolutionary science doesn’t make any presumption like that.

That gets to the heart of the matter. It's seldom conceded so emphatically, but of course God MUST be presumed not to exist as a tenet of atheism, otherwise how is chance ever allowed to win by default?

In stark contrast, a skeptic of atheism has no need to make any such unsupported presumptions, no need to banish natural forces, simply allow both known phenomena as possibilities and let each compete on a level scientific playing field.

 

[Polymath257]

That gets to the heart of the matter. It's seldom conceded so emphatically, but of course God MUST be presumed not to exist as a tenet of atheism, otherwise how is chance ever allowed to win by default?

In stark contrast, a skeptic of atheism has no need to make any such unsupported presumptions, no need to banish natural forces, simply allow both known phenomena as possibilities and let each compete on a level scientific playing field.

So, what would be an observation that would distinguish between a universe made by a deity and one that is not, but has natural laws?

 

[ecco]

No. The only presumption science makes about gods is that gods do not exist.

Thank you, ecco. I’m glad someone finally admitted it. Jose Fly intimated to me that evolutionary science doesn’t make any presumption like that.

Because it's true. @ecco is mistaken.....science does not make any inferences about gods one way or the other.

Jose,

I would suggest we are splitting hairs.

A presumption is "an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas"
An Inference is "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning"

As I previously stated, If science allows gods into the picture, then LastThursdayism is as good an explanation as...

...so why bother doing any research?

 

[ecco]

(emphases mine)

That gets to the heart of the matter. It's seldom conceded so emphatically, but of course God MUST be presumed not to exist as a tenet of atheism, otherwise how is chance ever allowed to win by default?

To be accurate you should have written:

• but of course gods MUST be presumed not to exist

Otherwise, someone would have to decide which god is the Right god, which Holy Scripture is the only True Word Of God, which Interpretation of the selected Holy Scripture is the Only Correct Interpretation.

So, why don't all you believers get together and figure it out. Then present the evidence to support your One and Only True Choice.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

As I previously stated, If science allows gods into the picture, then LastThursdayism is as good an explanation as...

...so why bother doing any research?

Lol.

Actually, the Bible states regarding it's position:

God is "suspending the Earth upon nothing"! -- Job 26:7

If this statement wasn't divinely inspired, how could the writer say something so outrageous (for those times,) yet be so accurate??

 

[Hockeycowboy]

...so why bother doing any research?

It did not inhibit Newton, or Galileo, or Boyle, or_____(insert Bible-believer here). In fact, as has been pointed out to you, it would increase their curiosity: understanding a superior intelligence was behind it, gives them added inducement to discover their purpose, the why.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol.

Actually, the Bible states regarding it's position:

God is "suspending the Earth upon nothing"! -- Job 26:7

If this statement wasn't divinely inspired, how could the writer say something so outrageous (for those times,) yet be so accurate??

Cherry picking. In Genesis 1:7 it is the land is above and below water with the "firmament" keeping the water away. Job also says that the Earth is upon pillars, has a foundation, etc.

Picking the one verse that matches reality somewhat is not justified. You can find many more here:


60 Bible Verses Describing a Flat Earth Inside a Dome

 

[Subduction Zone]

It did not inhibit Newton, or Galileo, or Boyle, or_____(insert Bible-believer here). In fact, as has been pointed out to you, it would increase their curiosity: understanding a superior intelligence was behind it, gives them added ingucement to discover their purpose, the why.

Galileo got in trouble because he did not take the Bible literally. I am sure there are examples of the other scientists that you listed did not make the error of taking the Bible literally either.

All that you showed was that one does not have to believe all of the myths of the Bible to be a Christian.

 

[exchemist]

Jose,

I would suggest we are splitting hairs.

A presumption is "an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas"
An Inference is "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning"

As I previously stated, If science allows gods into the picture, then LastThursdayism is as good an explanation as...


...so why bother doing any research?

It seems to me that you may be making the same confusion as the people behind the ID movement, between methodological naturalism on the one hand and physicalism or philosophical materialism on the other.

The scientific method, as you rightly say, excludes a priori any consideration of supernatural influence. It is after all natural, i.e. not supernatural, science! It looks for understanding through natural causes only.

Physicalism or philosophical materialism is something else: a (very respectable) worldview that the physical world is all there is. That is a metaphysical statement. Science does not do metaphysics. It leaves that to the philosophers.

The scientific method is a superbly successful toolkit for understanding nature. But it is not very helpful for understanding many other aspects of human experience. For that we look to the Humanities, which is where philosophy and religion belong.

 

[ArtieE]

That gets to the heart of the matter. It's seldom conceded so emphatically, but of course God MUST be presumed not to exist as a tenet of atheism

Atheism is just the absence of belief in the existence of gods. A Christian believer in the Bible is 99% atheist in that he has an absence of belief in the existence of all gods except for a few. If you theists could get together and at least agree on which gods exist and which parts of your holy scriptures are correct atheists have no reason to take any of you seriously. You theists don't even take each other seriously.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Lol.

Actually, the Bible states regarding it's position:

God is "suspending the Earth upon nothing"! -- Job 26:7

If this statement wasn't divinely inspired, how could the writer say something so outrageous (for those times,) yet be so accurate??

How in blue hell could you possibly consider that statement "accurate"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So, what would be an observation that would distinguish between a universe made by a deity and one that is not, but has natural laws?

The same observation that distinguishes a pattern of rocks spelling 'HELP' on a deserted island beach, from the rest that convey no information.

Arguably the random action of the waves is capable, and even just as likely to spell a 4 letter word as any particular meaningless pattern right?- it's just not the best explanation unless we can utterly rule out intelligent agency to a practically impossible degree.

As above, that's why God must be presumed to not exist by default, if he's allowed on the playing field, there's not much competition!

 

[Polymath257]

The same observation that distinguishes a pattern of rocks spelling 'HELP' on a deserted island beach, from the rest that convey no information.

Arguably the random action of the waves is capable, and even just as likely to spell a 4 letter word as any particular meaningless pattern right?- it's just not the best explanation unless we can utterly rule out intelligent agency to a practically impossible degree.

As above, that's why God must be presumed to not exist by default, if he's allowed on the playing field, there's not much competition!

OK, but we can only distinguish when there is intelligent action by knowing what the range is of natural action, right? It's a process of elimination based on probabilities?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Atheism is just the absence of belief in the existence of gods. A Christian believer in the Bible is 99% atheist in that he has an absence of belief in the existence of all gods except for a few. If you theists could get together and at least agree on which gods exist and which parts of your holy scriptures are correct atheists have no reason to take any of you seriously. You theists don't even take each other seriously.

(emphases mine)


To be accurate you should have written:

• but of course gods MUST be presumed not to exist

Otherwise, someone would have to decide which god is the Right god, which Holy Scripture is the only True Word Of God, which Interpretation of the selected Holy Scripture is the Only Correct Interpretation.

So, why don't all you believers get together and figure it out. Then present the evidence to support your One and Only True Choice.

Same response applies to both:

And which is your preferred naturalistic explanation? Big Crunch? Steady State? String Theory? the flying spaghetti multiverse? how's the evidence for any of those coming, any luck yet?

I'm only skeptical of one more naturalistic mechanism than you are...