Quote:
And if there was a "Christian miracle" that was of interest to non-Christians, they would just be called scientific anomalies by everyone else. Then people do research on them.




Then he used Islam as the vehicle of the analogy, hoping you would see his point then if he used a different religion. But you misunderstood him.

He asked what Muslim theology has to teach you about the workings of the world(Not Islamic science, but Islamic theology). This is the only interpretation that logically follows from his original comment, and if you had an ounce of intellectual empathy you'd see that.

I responded to that, Interbane.

I also responded to his second question. Christian theological doctrine addresses miracles. I posted about that.
Also, "non Christians" referring to miracles as "scientific anomalies" is of no consequence to theological doctrine addressing miracles.
Additionally, it is inaccurate to refer to natural anomalies as "scientific anomalies"
Nevertheless, both theists and atheists alike still "do the research on them."

Regarding what Muslim/Islamic theology has to teach you of the working world, I indicated that his belief that it was useless, as would any theological doctrine when examining the natural world, is to engage in scientism.

Gosh your lawyering here is cheap.

Dexter wrote:Do you want to claim that theology adds useful knowledge about the world? Doesn't sound like you're able to defend it. You just feel bad about it, because...scientism.

Hi Dexter.
As John Lennox has pointed out, historically scientists like Kepler,Newton,Clerk Maxwell and many others were motivated to study the world and it's laws because they believed in a divine lawgiver.These greatly contributed to our true understanding of the natural world and it's laws. So their belief in God was a strong contributory factor.
Of course the bible is not a science textbook ,no one thinks it is,nevertheless in the book of Isaiah God is said to have hung the earth on nothing and refers to the circle of the earth.
Theology can provide useful knowledge about God and man.
Secularism has it's dogma's such as Darwin's evolutionary theory and questionable offshoot understandings of man such as evolutionary psychology with it's "inner apes" ideas.This could be a myth and I don't think Darwin's theory has come close to answering the objections of it's critics. You seem to hold this theory as absolute fact.
I say this just to point out that you don't seem to be as sceptical about this when there seems grounds for skepticism. As an example of problems with this theory here's Jonathan Well's critique of Jerry Coyne's book; "Why evolution is true"
Well's article is titled "Why Darwinism is false" http://www.discovery.org/a/10661
Why a lack of scepticism here?

As John Lennox has pointed out, historically scientists like Kepler,Newton,Clerk Maxwell and many others were motivated to study the world and it's laws because they believed in a divine lawgiver.These greatly contributed to our true understanding of the natural world and it's laws. So their belief in God was a strong contributory factor.

I've said this before but it is always and always will be ignored.

Of course the bible is not a science textbook ,no one thinks it is

This point is continually dismissed by new atheists as well.
I have mentioned what the theological doctrine that addresses this issue.

It's dumb to think that others think theology can be used like a scientific tool to study nature at work.
Entertaining silly defenses are just as dumb.

Thanks for adding clarity here.

What is wished for here is for the theist to say s/he consults the Bible as a science textbook, after which the new atheist can continue to beat on their strawman

Flann 5 wrote: I say this just to point out that you don't seem to be as sceptical about this when there seems grounds for skepticism. As an example of problems with this theory here's Jonathan Well's critique of Jerry Coyne's book; "Why evolution is true"
Well's article is titled "Why Darwinism is false" http://www.discovery.org/a/10661
Why a lack of scepticism here?

If this was 1860 I probably would be skeptical. But...

Ernst Mayr observed, "The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact. How else except by the word evolution can we designate the sequence of faunas and floras in precisely dated geological strata? And evolutionary change is also simply a fact owing to the changes in the content of gene pools from generation to generation."

Kenneth R. Miller writes, "evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science."

Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould writes, "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

Douglas Futuyma writes in his Evolutionary Biology book, "The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors—the historical reality of evolution—is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun."

Neil Campbell wrote in his 1990 biology textbook, "Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ ... nd_theory/

Note that Kenneth Miller argues for reconciling evolution and belief in God, as many Christians realize that being anti-evolution is not tenable.

Here's Coyne responding to Jonathan Wells' book, making some of the same points

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/ ... review.htm

Faced with a series of hominid fossils showing transitions from ape-like to modern human traits over 4 million years, Wells can only mumble about the Piltdown Man hoax, and imply that the vigorous scientific debate about the course of human evolution proves that humans did not evolve.

How do evolution deniers explain the series of hominid fossils? They were all just designed separately and went extinct?

How do evolution deniers explain the series of hominid fossils? They were all just designed separately and went extinct?

Just wondering and not trying to argue anything specific here:

How extensive is our hard (not theoretical) evidence of transitionall fossils?

Hi Dexter, Thanks for your reply.
Certainly the neo Darwinian synthesis is the majority view amongst biologists. It is coming under increasing scrutiny and scepticism from increasing numbers of biologists who want it scrapped for a better theory while still holding to evolutionary premises.
I linked an article by Stephen Meyer a while ago on problems in terms of the origins and evolution of genetic information,for Johnson to respond to. Also the Cambrian explosion is problematic for a number of reasons. It is early in the rock strata and as Dawkins says it looks as if they were just planted there.The antecedents and links are conspicuously absent.
Also the theory predicts early life forms diverging into disparate life forms but here we have early disparate life forms diverging into our later diverse variations.
The problem of trying to produce new species of bacteria that are something other than bacteria.These barriers look stubborn and resist attempts to break through them.
I think the genetic information problem is significant.
You may be right Dexter, but I do think there are grounds for scepticism.
Your comment about "evolution deniers" makes it sound like holocaust denial or medieval heresy.There are reasons why it is questioned. Here's an interesting article on a fossil find which shows it's not all as sorted as sometimes suggested. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013 ... -evolution

There are reasons why it is questioned. Here's an interesting article on a fossil find which shows it's not all as sorted as sometimes suggested.

What are you questioning? The timeframe and nature in which various species of homo emerged and perished? This does not lead to any skepticism towards the theory of evolution.

This is like saying that because we don't know when a certain layer of rock strata in the Grand Canyon eroded, that we should therefore be skeptical of the theory that water erosion caused the Grand Canyon.

The levels of information here are separate in form and function.

It is coming under increasing scrutiny and scepticism from increasing numbers of biologists who want it scrapped for a better theory while still holding to evolutionary premises.

If the current theory is scrapped for something else, you will not be able to tell the difference. We have a mountain of facts that will simply not change. That mountain will stay. If anything changes, it will be minor and not at all reflective of the overall theory, such as our understanding of the evolution of homo erectus, in particular.

Do you have a link to biologists saying they want the modern synthesis scrapped?

Interbane wrote: If the current theory is scrapped for something else, you will not be able to tell the difference. We have a mountain of facts that will simply not change. That mountain will stay. If anything changes, it will be minor and not at all reflective of the overall theory,

Hi Interbane,
I'm going to provide a link to scientists unhappy with the neo -Darwinian synthesis. A narrow commonality seems to be a questioning of the scope of natural selection and maybe individually they have other concerns. I don't know as I'm not an expert and haven't read the works of these scientists.
The good news for you Interbane is that they seem to want reformulation of the theory that is naturalistic.

But even a narrow questioning of the scope of natural selection is not "minor" since it is key to the popular model.

Your dismissal of Sternberg is unwarranted and as I said neo Darwinism does require vast periods of time to effect the kinds of changes Sternberg highlights in relation to whales. Unless you have a new version of the theory?
In the debate Prothero waved evo devo like a magic wand they were blissfully ignorant of, but Sternberg and others are not impressed with these arguments,and for scientific reasons.
It is all highly technical but if the "mountain of facts" or more precisely the scope of natural selection for neo Darwinism is questioned on the basis of evidence what does this say about the mountain of facts?
Some of these "facts" are speculative drawings of "intermediates" and often entire creatures are "reconstructed" from very small fragments of fossils to fit the theory.
www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people

I'm going to provide a link to scientists unhappy with the neo -Darwinian synthesis. A narrow commonality seems to be a questioning of the scope of natural selection and maybe individually they have other concerns.

We discussed this in another thread. I think Johnson chimed in. They seem to favor Lamarckian ideas, as well as a hodgepodge of other types of inheritance. Some of it will pan out as truthful, but will not be a "third way" of evolution. Natural selection does not rule out epigenetic inheritance nor lamarckian inheritance. As I said before, the changes to the theory of evolution will be in ways that are deep within each field, technical to the point that you will see no obvious change in the theory.

Your dismissal of Sternberg is unwarranted and as I said neo Darwinism does require vast periods of time to effect the kinds of changes Sternberg highlights in relation to whales. Unless you have a new version of the theory?

What good would a new version of the theory do? We already have a version that fits the evidence like a glove. If speciation can happen in a couple of decades, millions of years is easily enough time for a whale to develop from a minnow. I dismiss Sternberg because his idea is worthy of dismissal. It's a veiled argument from ignorance or incredulity.

It is all highly technical but if the "mountain of facts" or more precisely the scope of natural selection for neo Darwinism is questioned on the basis of evidence what does this say about the mountain of facts?

The mountain of evidence does not change. It is a fixed thing. How we interpret the evidence could change, but the vast majority of it is like a large arrow pointing in the same direction. The final conclusion may be a little to the left or right, and that is not only expected but eagerly anticipated. Evolution as you understand it will not change. We evolve from simpler organisms through differential selection.

Some of these "facts" are speculative drawings of "intermediates" and often entire creatures are "reconstructed" from very small fragments of fossils to fit the theory.

Nothing speculative is also a fact. If there are speculative drawings, they're shifting sand on the slope of the mountain. Take a guess how many "experiments" have been performed from various fields that show the truth of evolution. The type of experiments that are blind when necessary, control for experimenter bias, are subject to peer review, and converge on the singular conclusion that life on our planet has evolved. I'm not referring to fossils and plant hybrids and rock strata and taxonomy, even though those are facts as well.



Your entire post was building strained conclusions from what other people said Flann. Evolution is more than the ideas of a handful of people. If you truly want to criticize the theory, you'll need to read a few books. Not just read them, but engage your intellectual humility and intellectual empathy while reading them. Try to see past the words to the mechanisms behind.