Darwin destroyed in new book

[ViewFromAbove]

Evolution occurred, it can’t be denied
Complex life evolved from simple life forms

A “Creator” is at best a theory
A theory unsupported by any evidence

A "Creator" is not a scientific theory, but a theological belief that may be considered a "faith theory", without a need for evidence.

 

[Hollie]

No," theory " in Philosohy of Science rules that out completely.

“In so far as a theory cannot be tested by experience—or appears not capable of being so tested—it ought to be revised so that its predictions are restricted to observable magnitudes.”
― Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy

TOTALLY WRONG.Do you observe 'evolution' NO

No value in ''Philosohy of Science'. You probably mean 'Philosophy' of science but no matter.

The only value of philosophy of science lies in its EQ, or Entertainment Quotient. I'm not aware of any aspects of the philosophy of science that have ever produced even a paragraph of material that could be helpful in the realm of science investigation and that would include physics, biology, geology, you name it.

We discriminate between facts and rhetoric based on evidence and evaluation. There are a certain number of theories in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence to support the theory that the unsupported claims of the hyper-religious are just not meaningful. Biological evolution is one of those sciences. There will always be a certain number of people who for religious or philosophical reasons reject that facts of science. But there is a reason the argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, because it tells us nothing about what is actually true.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A "Creator" is not a scientific theory, but a theological belief that may be considered a "faith theory", without a need for evidence.

But you could look at, "There is a god or creator" as a hypothesis. As in... is it true?

But, how to test it? It (very conveniently) lives outside our abilities to test for it.

 

[San Souci]

We are apes.

And the resemblance holds for all of us.

Nope. YOU are Ape-Like.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nope. YOU are Ape-Like.

No, sorry. Go check. We're Great Apes.

 

[Hollie]

A "Creator" is not a scientific theory, but a theological belief that may be considered a "faith theory", without a need for evidence.

I suppose that's true. Of course the faith theory would apply to all the creators ever invented by humans. All are as equally supported as the competing creators.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

As a scientifically-trained person I have to laugh at your ignorance about peer-review.MANY scientists now say it is a complete shuck

Here is the 3-part series on the utter failure of peer-review, by the National Assciation of Scholars

Shifting Sands: Keeping Count of Government Science Series | NAS

<p>The Shifting Sands project examines how irreproducible science affects select areas of government policy and regulation governments by different federal agencies. The first report on <em>PM_2.5Regulation</em> focuses on irreproducible research in the field of environmental...

www.nas.org

ENJOY< DON"T GAG

You are a "scientifically-trained" person and conclude that a single "creator" is responsible for our universe?
I am sure you do not understand scientific methodology.

 

[San Souci]

No, sorry. Go check. We're Great Apes.

OK ,King Kong. How great ARE ya?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

OK ,King Kong. How great ARE ya?

So great, there are only 5 of us: Humans, Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas, and Orangs

 

[ViewFromAbove]

I suppose that's true. Of course the faith theory would apply to all the creators ever invented by humans. All are as equally supported as the competing creators.

I think "supported" is a real stretch, with regard to evidence.

 

[Hollie]

I think "supported" is a real stretch, with regard to evidence.

Yes. Good catch.

 

[rightwinger]

Well ,maybe YOUR ancestors were Apes. I do see the resemblance.

Another clueless moron about how evolution works

 

[rightwinger]

A scientific "theory" is a logical explanation for something that we cannot observe directly. There were many theories about the size, shape, and nature of the ATOM, and ultimately we reached the point where we could observe some of them (electron microscope), so all the theories went out the window, replaced by factual knowledge.

We cannot observe the process by which different species come into being; they simply take too long. "Evolution" is a nice, neat theory that is more or less consistent with what we can observe, so we use it as a teaching tool. But like a sixty-year-old beauty, its value decreases the closer we look. Whole books have been written about the things that Evolution cannot explain, and the proofs that it just doesn't work in many specific instances (some THING cannot be explained by natural selection).

The staunchest defenders of Evolution are Leftists with no knowledge or understanding of any science. They have converted Evolution from a scientific theory to a "religion" (something that is accepted on faith), and woe to anyone who challenges it. HERETICS! But I have news for them: Just because one debunks Evolution does not necessarily mean that one accepts Genesis as a historical or scientific explanation of the origin of species.

Evolution is a FACT
It occurs

How and why it occurs are theories

 

[scruffy]

No, sorry. Go check. We're Great Apes.

Except we have a ventromedial prefrontal cortex they don't have. But yeah.

 

[San Souci]

Another clueless moron about how evolution works

How does it work ,Einstein?

 

[rightwinger]

How does it work ,Einstein?

You still believe we evolved from apes?

 

[San Souci]

You still believe we evolved from apes?

Nope.

 

[alang1216]

Look, any student of Math past grammar school knows alang does not know what he's talking about. That is an old Richard Dawkins/ Stephen Hawking ploy.

Does too!

 

[Libby von H]

A "Creator" is not a scientific theory, but a theological belief that may be considered a "faith theory", without a need for evidence.

NO, even the very word was used by philosophers and thinkers throughout Western Civilization to show that is wasn't theological

Hence 2 references within 1 sentence in the Declaration of Independence
" that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights "

Really, you are way way way off

 

[Hollie]

NO, even the very word was used by philosophers and thinkers throughout Western Civilization to show that is wasn't theological

Hence 2 references within 1 sentence in the Declaration of Independence
" that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights "

Really, you are way way way off

In their various writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists. They believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, they needed a "supreme author" of existence but not one who necessarily was involved in the day to day requirements or needs of humanity.