The Lies and Arrogance of Evolutionists

[M.D. Rawlings]

First of all, all you did is PONTIFICATE that science is metaphysical, which is completely worthless psychobabble.

And I'm an EXISTENTIALIST, I don't have a metaphysical presupposition other than that the metaphysical is meaningless bullshit.

They are exact opposites. Metaphysics says Essence begets Existence, and Existentialism says Existence begets Essence.

Existentialist?

Perhaps. But firstly, above all else, you're a liar and an imbecile.

(1) I never said that science is metaphysical. I have emphatically and repeatedly stated that science deals with the empirical only. It's underlying presupposition is metaphysical. Those are not the same idea!

(2) Metaphysics does not say essence begets existence. SHUT UP! That is a tautological statement, essentially meaningless, unless you're alluding to Platonic Idealism, and if that's the case, and who's knows (LOL!), your rendition of it is illiterate gibberish.

Metaphysics is the field of study that attempts to established or define essence, it's not a metaphysical theory of essence. You're describing something that would fall within the field of metaphysics, not metaphysics itself.

And science must necessarily assume one metaphysical apriority or another in order to proceed, your existentialism notwithstanding! Fact.

Are the lights on yet? Did you find the switch?

I’m surrounded by a sea of idiots.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. . . . —Wikipedia​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

But the lights did finally come on for someone. Don't recall who. I was just about to expose his staggering stupidity when the lights went out yesterday for site maintenance.

The poster wrote that "I wasn't convincing anyone", apparently, about the relationship between metaphysics and science because "they knew better." Then he went on to rhetorically and snidely ask what the hell a philosopher of science was anyway?

LOL!

That post is gone, no doubt, deleted by the damn fool who put it up after it occured him to do a google. Gee. How embarssing.

philosophy of science, Branch of philosophy that attempts to elucidate the nature of scientific inquiry—observational procedures, patterns of argument, methods of representation and calculation, metaphysical presuppositions—and evaluate the grounds of their validity from the points of view of epistemology, formal logic, scientific method and metaphysics.

Historically, it has had two main preoccupations, ontological and epistemological. The ontological preoccupations (which frequently overlap with the sciences themselves) ask what kinds of entities can properly figure in scientific theories and what sort of existence such entities possess. Epistemologically, philosophers of science have analyzed and evaluated the concepts and methods employed in studying natural. . . . —Encyclopedia Britannica​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

*Crickets Chirping*

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The philosophy of science, a sub-branch of epistemology, is the branch of philosophy that studies the philosophical assumptions, foundations, and implications of science, including the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry and biology, the social sciences such as psychology, history, and sociology, and sometimes—especially beginning about the second decade of the twentieth century—the formal sciences, such as logic, mathematics, set theory, and proof theory. In this last respect, the philosophy of science is often closely related to philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, and to formal systems of logic and formal languages. The twentieth century witnessed a proliferation of research and literature on the philosophy of science. Debate is robust amongst philosophers of science and within the discipline much remains inconclusive. . . . —
New World Encyclopedia

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Now, what is the metaphysical apriority of our atheist friends and evolutionists. They don't seem to know what their own presupposition is. LOL!

Here, let me help them. . .

Metaphysical naturalism, or ontological naturalism, is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment and having mechanical properties amenable to mathematical modeling.

Metaphysical naturalism holds that all concepts related to consciousness or to the mind refer to entities which are reducible to or supervene on natural things, forces and causes. More specifically, it rejects the objective existence of any supernatural thing, force or cause, such as occur in humanity’s various religions, as well as any form of teleology. It sees all "supernatural" things as explainable in purely natural terms.

It is not merely a view about what science currently studies, but also about what science might discover in the future. Metaphysical naturalism is a monistic and not a dualistic view of reality.

In practice, metaphysical naturalism reduces to the more specific ontological view of "scientific" naturalism, according to which reality consists only of what the concepts of the natural sciences (and especially physics) investigate. "Scientific" naturalism is closely related to physicalism. It is often simply referred to as naturalism, religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism, and occasionally as philosophical naturalism or ontological naturalism, though all those terms also have other meanings, in which naturalism often refers to methodological naturalism.

Metaphysical naturalism is an ontology providing one possible philosophical foundation for methodological naturalism, which is a related but distinct system of thought concerned with our cognitive approach to reality and hence is a philosophy of knowledge or epistemology. —Wikipedia​

 

[geauxtohell]

I'll tell you what; first you respond to my challenge to you: "show how ID can fit into the scientific method" and then I'll pick up some of yours.

I saw your linked in post. It didn't even address that issue. I don't know who you think you are fooling.

Who do I think I'm fooling?! OBTUSE AS A TWO-BY-FOUR ARE YOU.

I don't owe you an explanation with regard to my worldview as far as the political aspect of this debate is concerned. I am a free human being. Who the hell do you think you are? You do not have the right to impose your worldview on me in the name of science or in the name of anything else, ya fascist freak. That is a matter of every-day-walk-in-the-park common sense and decency.

If tomorrow the regnant scientific community pronounces something else to be sacrosanct, no matter how stupid, we're all supposed to just bow down to that too in the public schools?

As for the scientific aspect of the debate. Up yours! You idiots refuse to acknowledge the pertinent distinctions between Creationism and ID theory, the actual nature of ID theory's empirical concerns and the universal nature of science's first principle.

You don't have to justify your personal beliefs to me, nor have I asked you too.

However, if you want to change policy, that would affect us all, you'd better be prepared to defend your position. Don't even think that you are going to hide behind the "who are you to question my personal beliefs!" canard. No one has done that here.

Again, you are entitled to believe whatever you want. You are not entitled to call that science and force others to learn it.

Again, this is very simple. There is a standard that scientific theories have to meet. I.D. fails to do that.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

*Crickets Chirping*

 

[geauxtohell]

But the lights did finally come on for someone. Don't recall who. I was just about to expose his staggering stupidity when the lights went out yesterday for site maintenance.

The poster wrote that "I wasn't convincing anyone", apparently, about the relationship between metaphysics and science because "they knew better." Then he went on to rhetorically and snidely ask what the hell a philosopher of science was anyway?

LOL!

That post is gone, no doubt, deleted by the damn fool who put it up after it occured him to do a google. Gee. How embarssing.

philosophy of science, Branch of philosophy that attempts to elucidate the nature of scientific inquiry—observational procedures, patterns of argument, methods of representation and calculation, metaphysical presuppositions—and evaluate the grounds of their validity from the points of view of epistemology, formal logic, scientific method and metaphysics.

Historically, it has had two main preoccupations, ontological and epistemological. The ontological preoccupations (which frequently overlap with the sciences themselves) ask what kinds of entities can properly figure in scientific theories and what sort of existence such entities possess. Epistemologically, philosophers of science have analyzed and evaluated the concepts and methods employed in studying natural. . . . —Encyclopedia Britannica​

The post is gone in the board upgrade. I made several posts to you yesterday that got wiped out.

Oh well.

 

[geauxtohell]

The philosophy of science, a sub-branch of epistemology, is the branch of philosophy that studies the philosophical assumptions, foundations, and implications of science, including the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry and biology, the social sciences such as psychology, history, and sociology, and sometimes—especially beginning about the second decade of the twentieth century—the formal sciences, such as logic, mathematics, set theory, and proof theory. In this last respect, the philosophy of science is often closely related to philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, and to formal systems of logic and formal languages. The twentieth century witnessed a proliferation of research and literature on the philosophy of science. Debate is robust amongst philosophers of science and within the discipline much remains inconclusive. . . . —
New World Encyclopedia

Right. You are a philosopher. Not a scientist.

No wonder you are confused.

 

[edthecynic]

No it's not. All life is made up from naturally formed components. You Creationists have never been able to show even one molecule necessary for life made from "designer" components. Until you Creationists can show a molecule that is made up of designer components you have no empirical evidence for your metaphysics.

What! So abiogenesis is an established theory now? That's what you're unwittingly implying. When did that happen? ROTFLMAO! Please provide the link showing that the Pasteurian law of biogenesis has been overthrown . . . and good luck with that.

*Crickets Chirping*

And aside from blind faith, the substance of your metaphysics, the substance of the claim that nothing exists beyond nature, is?

*Crickets Chirping*

And there is plenty of empirical evidence evincing design.

But you're welcome to your atheistic superstitions, just don't be surprised should your collectivist, one-size-fits-all mediocrity come apart at the seams. You're artificial constitutional theory is giving way to more and more charter schools and vouchers and tax credits all the time.

I'm not "implying."
YOU are diverting!!!

You can't deny that there are no designer building blocks in life, only natural building blocks, IMPLYING that the "designer" is NATURE, so you desperately try to change the subject.

"Crickets Chirping*

 

[edthecynic]

First of all, all you did is PONTIFICATE that science is metaphysical, which is completely worthless psychobabble.

And I'm an EXISTENTIALIST, I don't have a metaphysical presupposition other than that the metaphysical is meaningless bullshit.

They are exact opposites. Metaphysics says Essence begets Existence, and Existentialism says Existence begets Essence.

Existentialist?

Perhaps. But firstly, above all else, you're a liar and an imbecile.

(1) I never said that science is metaphysical. I have emphatically and repeatedly stated that science deals with the empirical only. It's underlying presupposition is metaphysical. Those are not the same idea!

(2) Metaphysics does not say essence begets existence. SHUT UP! That is a tautological statement, essentially meaningless, unless you're alluding to Platonic Idealism, and if that's the case, and who's knows (LOL!), your rendition of it is illiterate gibberish.

Metaphysics is the field of study that attempts to established or define essence, it's not a metaphysical theory of essence. You're describing something that would fall within the field of metaphysics, not metaphysics itself.

And science must necessarily assume one metaphysical apriority or another in order to proceed, your existentialism notwithstanding! Fact.

Are the lights on yet? Did you find the switch?

I’m surrounded by a sea of idiots.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. . . . —Wikipedia​

(1) If as you say, the underlying presupposition of science is metaphysical, then you are saying science is metaphysical. To deny that is just as dishonest as claiming that in the religion of ID, the Intelligent Designer can be something other than God.

(2) Metaphysics is not "attempting" to define essence, it defines essence as "SOUL."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What is untruthful about any of the above?

Everything.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The post is gone in the board upgrade. I made several posts to you yesterday that got wiped out.

Oh well.

Okay.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Right. You are a philosopher. Not a scientist.

And you're neither.

No wonder you are confused.

Oh?

You know, I keep wondering if you're ever going to stop with the "argument by sophistry" and discuss the matter in good faith.

But no. You want go on with the trivial, the boring . . . the longest yawn.

You quibble with me over the metaphysics of science. You won't frankly state what the metaphysical bias underlying your scientific theory is. Instead, it has to be dragged out of you.

You put up a link about the Discovery Institute's political agenda, implying that scientific ID theory proper directly deals with the nature of the designer when it doesn't and can't after conceding that ID theory and Creationism are not the same thing.

Do you understand the distinction between Creationism and ID theory or not? You're not making any sense at all, are you?

The Discovery Institute does not own ID theory, and it's politics are not relevant to the science of ID theory.

If you want to argue with stawmen then e-mail your concerns to the Institute. In the meantime, the professional scientists of ID theory, an international community comprised of both theists and agnostics, do not practice theology in their research, as the theory does not and cannot directly address the existence or non-existence of God, let alone the nature of the potential designer. For regardless of the personal belief of this or that ID theorist, ID theory, like any other scientific theory, can only deal with empirical data.

Beyond my concern for righting the Court's depraved indifference to the imperatives of the free exercise clause and to the fundamental rights of religionists, I don’t care about the political rhetoric on either side. I'm not advocating that the State impose my worldview on you. You're the only one between us arguing that the Constitution permits such a thing, albeit, as long as the worldview being imposed is yours, ya fascist freak.

I'm the one advocating universal school choice, educational freedom, ideological liberty for all—the theist, the atheist, the agnostic, the creationist, the ID theorist, the evolutionist . . . whatever.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Establishing the fundamentals of scientific inquiry, the relationship between metaphysics and science, and the distinction between your scientific apriority and mine are pertinent.

It's pointless to go on to the science unless we accurately understand each other's perspective and approach to the evidence.

Is science and, subsequently, all scientific theory necessarily predicated on one metaphysical apriority or another regarding the nature of reality?

YES! INCONTRAVERTIBLY SO.

Me - 1; the sea of pathological liars - 0.


Is evolutionary theory predicated on a post-modern (or post-Darwinian) methodological naturalism (either a Deistic-like naturalism in the case of the theist, or a metaphysical naturalism (also, philosophical naturalism or ontological naturalism) in the case of the materialist?

YES! INCONTRAVERTIBLY SO!

Me - 2; the sea of pathological liars - 0.


Is ID theory predicated on the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism, that of Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle and others?

YES! INCONTROVERTIBLY SO!

Me - 3; the sea of pathological liars - 0


Does ID theory proper deal with the empirical evidence potentially evincing design only?

YES! INCONTORVERTIBLY SO!

Me - 4; the sea of pathological liars - 0.


Does the ID theorist hold that the temporal plain is ordinarily bound to natural causality? Yes. Of course he does. Does he assume that this necessarily holds true for all time and space beyond that which can be scientifically verified? No. Does he assume that the temporal plain is all that exits? No. Does he care that the majority of today’s professional scientists embrace a Deistic naturalism or a metaphysical naturalism? No. He holds that their premise is presumptuously and dogmatically unscientific.

 

[konradv]

The "free exercise" clause is irrelevant. We're not talking about religion, we're talking science. There's no imperative that every segment of the religious spectrum has to be catered to. What's next, sharia?!?!

Yeah. Sure. Throw out the free exercise clause and the only perspective that matters is that of the State, in practical terms, that of the elite or the collective, that of the few or the mob.

Only a balanced application of the First Amendment's establishment and free exercise clauses provides for universal individual liberty and free-association.

The government imposing Sharia Law?! Ya nitwit. The only dynamic in which such a thing would be possible would be within your half-baked stupidity.

The First Amendment means that no one's worldview can be trampled on by the government, and the government cannot impose anyone’s' worldview on another. Period.

Funny, but I can't find "worldview" in the Constitution. You been adding extra sections?!?!

 

[konradv]

There you have it!!! This isn't about science at all, but about protecting one's worldview. The only thing that appears to be "sacrosanct" is your perceived "right" to not be told anything that opposes that worldview. Evolutionary theory on the other hand has gone through a number of changes over the years as new evidence forces tweaking of the original theory. NOTHING sacrosanct about that.

And there you have it! A non sequitur, a litany of baby talk.

You don't have the first clue as to what I'm talking about here.

Also, I know all about evolutionary theory. I don't need your instruction. I've written dozens of papers on the topic, both pro and con. I've even drawn the pro card a few times in debate. In those instances, unless you knew me personally you would never know that I was actually an ID theorist scientifically and a creationist theologically.

No. The problem here is that I'm surrounded by persons who do not properly understand what they're arguing against. ID theory's methodology is unorthodox, but not in the way that any of you are going on about. If you still wish to hold that it's unscientific, fine. I don't care. LOL! But do so for the right reasons, acknowledge the nature of your apriority and fess up to science's first principle . . . so we can move on, for crying out loud!

So tell us, if we were "intelligently designed", of 64 possible mRNA codons for 20 amino acids, why do some AAs have one codon and some as many as 6? It seems to me that that shows randomness, NOT design. Design could be implied, if each AA had three codons with two each reserved for stop and start, but that's not what we see.

 

[geauxtohell]

And you're neither.

As a Medical Student, I certainly consider myself a scientist. At the very least, I'd be happy to stack my post-graduate hours spent study sciences against yours. Or are you sporting a big goose egg?

Have you ever done an actual research project and that was intended to be published in a scientific journal?

Oh?

You know, I keep wondering if you're ever going to stop with the "argument by sophistry" and discuss the matter in good faith.

But no. You want go on with the trivial, the boring . . . the longest yawn.

You quibble with me over the metaphysics of science. You won't frankly state what the metaphysical bias underlying your scientific theory is. Instead, it has to be dragged out of you.

No. You continue to misrepresent this. I don't give a damn about the "metaphysical". You are the only person interested in that. Perhaps your mistake is in trying to discuss philosophy with people who are interested in discussing actual science.

You put up a link about the Discovery Institute's political agenda, implying that scientific ID theory proper directly deals with the nature of the designer when it doesn't and can't after conceding that ID theory and Creationism are not the same thing.

I never claimed ID and Creationism are the same thing. The D.I. link is certainly relevant as they are the major proponent of I.D. in this country. It demonstrates that (aside from their dishonest claims to the contrary) the real mission of the D.I. is theological and not scientific.

Even if the supernatural is not the God of Abraham, it's still a supernatural force. Therefore, it is automatically excluded as a scientific theory.

Do you understand the distinction between Creationism and ID theory or not? You're not making any sense at all, are you?

Yes.

The Discovery Institute does not own ID theory, and it's politics are not relevant to the science of ID theory.

It certainly is. The D.I. is the face of the modern ID movement in this country.

If you want to argue with stawmen then e-mail your concerns to the Institute. In the meantime, the professional scientists of ID theory, an international community comprised of both theists and agnostics, do not practice theology in their research, as the theory does not and cannot directly address the existence or non-existence of God, let alone the nature of the potential designer. For regardless of the personal belief of this or that ID theorist, ID theory, like any other scientific theory, can only deal with empirical data.

Feel free to demonstrate some empirical data that supports the notion of a supernatural force guiding evolution.

I keep asking you for nuts and bolts, you keep giving me fluff and going into rages of indignation that we would ask you to use science to support a theory you claim is scientific.

Beyond my concern for righting the Court's depraved indifference to the imperatives of the free exercise clause and to the fundamental rights of religionists, I don’t care about the political rhetoric on either side. I'm not advocating that the State impose my worldview on you. You're the only one between us arguing that the Constitution permits such a thing, albeit, as long as the worldview being imposed is yours, ya fascist freak.

Yeah, whatever. Again, I don't care what people choose to believe or how they choose to worship in their own homes. My only interest is in preventing the science curriculum from being perverted.

I'm the one advocating universal school choice, educational freedom, ideological liberty for all—the theist, the atheist, the agnostic, the creationist, the ID theorist, the evolutionist . . . whatever.

You are also advocating for junk science.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No it's not. All life is made up from naturally formed components. You Creationists have never been able to show even one molecule necessary for life made from "designer" components. Until you Creationists can show a molecule that is made up of designer components you have no empirical evidence for your metaphysics.

. . . I'm not "implying."

YOU are diverting!!!

You can't deny that there are no designer building blocks in life, only natural building blocks, IMPLYING that the "designer" is NATURE, so you desperately try to change the subject.

Great! Wonderful! Perfect!

And for a moment there I thought we were finally moving on to the science, beginning with abiogenesis, given that you're all atheists apparently. . . .

I'm diverting? Well perhaps I misunderstood you, but one can hardly claim that it was unreasonable of me to think you were talking about abiogenesis when you wrote: "All life is made up from naturally formed components."

So we're not moving on to the science?

Great!

Okay, that's it. Are there any honest evolutionists on this board who care to discuss the actual science from first principles in good faith?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Funny, but I can't find "worldview" in the Constitution. You been adding extra sections?!?!

Funny, the Founders and the Framers, being Lockean political theorists, would obviously not recognize the collectivist, Twentieth-Century doctrine of the leftist Warren Court that the State can create a public education system and then declare it to be a social-contract/constitutional free zone.