Is Darwinism useful?

[gnostic]

To those who reject me, I will answer with the
words of the great visionary Nikola Tesla

Are you comparing yourself with Tesla?

That’s hubris.

Look, questfortruth.

“...reject me”?

You have never presented any concepts that your works are falsifiable or testable, let alone tested, because if you did you would have evidence to support your claims.

So we reject your claims, not you.

And I am quite certain if you did sent your concepts to one of the Peer Review publications, they could reject your concepts for any numbers of reasons.

1. If you hypothesis included a summary, brief or synopsis, that would be the first they would read, to see if they should go any further, especially if they see immediately it isn’t falsifiable.
2. If they see you have not supply them with the necessary “evidence & data” along with your hypothesis, that show you have tested the hypothesis, that would be automatic rejection.
3. Or it could both 1 & 2. If they see lack of reviewable data and read your hypothesis’ brief, they could reject your work for review.

Either of these scenarios would be ground of automatic rejecting your work.

And point 2 is the most likely scenario and ground to reject your paper: no evidence, no test results and no data to review, I don’t think the publisher would even bother to read your brief.

In any of these cases,You would get to the next stage, as they wouldn’t even bother to notify any independent scientists of specific field, they would send your work, to read and analyze your hypothesis.

So there would be no peer review if you don’t meet their standards.

Did you even include test results & data with your hypothesis?

 

[questfortruth]

Are you comparing yourself with Tesla?

Two legs, two arms, one head - there is something to compare.

 

[GardenLady]

Theists don't care about evidence; they believe in their God without proof, because no proof exists.

How do you reconcile this statement with the fact that many theists accept the scientific evidence supporting evolution and deep time while still remaining theists? I know many personally--mainline Protestants, Catholics, Jews--and am one myself.

 

[questfortruth]

the fact that many theists accept the scientific evidence supporting evolution and deep time while still remaining theists?

The sin of Darwinism is very appealing. It attracts people. The sinner is satan, and satan is the sinner. The sinner makes you sin, and when you sin, he will scold you for sin and despise you. It is not pleasant for a sinner to sin himself and to see how you sin. But he is irresistibly attracted to sin: "and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him" Genesis 4:7.

 

[metis]

The sin of Darwinism is very appealing. It attracts people. The sinner is satan, and satan is the sinner.

Not true, and as a matter of fact most Christian theologians accept the basic ToE as long as it's understood that God is and was behind it all.

 

[questfortruth]

Not true, and as a matter of fact most Christian theologians accept the basic ToE as long as it's understood that God is and was behind it all.

Must I feel shame because I am Christian or because I am a talented scientist?

 

[GardenLady]

Must I feel shame because I am Christian or because I am a talented scientist?

Or maybe because you make ridiculous claims that demonstrate profound ignorance of science?

 

[GardenLady]

Not true, and as a matter of fact most Christian theologians accept the basic ToE as long as it's understood that God is and was behind it all.

Years ago, during the creationist legal wars, I was listening to a panel discussion where a teacher lamented that you can't teach evolution in Kansas schools. A Jesuit responded, you can in Catholic schools.

 

[shunyadragon]

Must I feel shame because I am Christian or because I am a talented scientist?

'talented scientist?!?!?!' Up to this point you have shown no expretie in science, nor will ing to post peer reviewed scientific references to support your arguments.

 

[shunyadragon]

Years ago, during the creationist legal wars, I was listening to a panel discussion where a teacher lamented that you can't teach evolution in Kansas schools. A Jesuit responded, you can in Catholic schools.

That is because Roman schools (RCC) are private, the Conservative school boards meddle in the teaching making it difficult to teach real science. Conservative private schools teach a literal Creation based on Genesis, and reject the science of evolution as well as many other aspects of science in varying degrees,

I believe that teaching the science of evolution is possible in most of the country, but the meddling influence of conservative Christians make it difficult.

 

[shunyadragon]

The sin of Darwinism is very appealing. It attracts people. The sinner is satan, and satan is the sinner. The sinner makes you sin, and when you sin, he will scold you for sin and despise you. It is not pleasant for a sinner to sin himself and to see how you sin. But he is irresistibly attracted to sin: "and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him" Genesis 4:7.

The science of evolution is very universally appealing, because it is based on 'objective verifiable evidence.'

 

[shunyadragon]

How do you reconcile this statement with the fact that many theists accept the scientific evidence supporting evolution and deep time while still remaining theists? I know many personally--mainline Protestants, Catholics, Jews--and am one myself.

My belief in the harmony of science and religion is based on the teachings of the Baha'i Faith. Our scripture is, of course, spiritual with guidance for our journey, and the knowledge of science as well as religion evolves.Scripture and science have two different languages. In the Baha'i Faith the understanding of the scripture concerning our physical existence must be understood in the light of the evolving knowledge of science.

The problem in Christianity is the NT scripture considers the OT as fundamentally literal, with symbolic and allegorical interpretations foe teaching the faith, as far as what is in the Pentateuch. The problem is science has evolved well beyond the knowledge and culture of the times the OT and NT were compiled, edited and redacted, and liberal Christians must hedge the interpretation, and rely on a more humanist approach to rectify the contradiction not only with the history of life and the cosmos, but history itself that does not fit the Biblical perspective of science nor history. There far there remains a sharp division n Christianity where more than 40% of Christians believe in some sort of literal Genesis, becaus ethe Bible says so,