|
Author
|
Topic: Darwinism as Delusion (response to Richard Dawkins by John Davison)
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. November 2006 07:57
Melvin, you just don't get it do you. What we believe means nothing, absolutely nothing. All that matters is what we can demonstrate in the laboratory and what is revealed by the fossil record.
You will fail if you think you can discredit me by such tactics, There is no place for religion, especially a personal religion in science. I would love to KNOW there was a caring personal God and even an afterlife but that is out of the question. I thought everybody knew that.
I will let others speak on my behalf.
"We believe that there is no reason for being forced to choose between "either randomness or the supernatural," a choice into which the advocates of randomness in biology strive vainly to back their opponents."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
Albert Einstein
Besides which, my personal life is mine and mine alone. Thank you very much.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 17. November 2006 09:45
John,
My most sincere apologies are offered to you. I made no conscious effort to offend you nor could I discredit your scientific work via any comment made on my previous post. I do not pretend for one moment to poses scientific knowledge and experience even close to the level you have attained.
Let me point out that it is you who brought up the topic of faith connected to your personal life. It is also you who continually brings up the notion that “God is dead.” I would simply make one request: Please do not pretend to be Roman Catholic here at this forum. You can’t be Roman Catholic and renounce Jesus as the living God. This is impossible even for a scientist.
By the way, you claim that Jesus thought tolerance. This is not correct. Jesus preached forgiveness, a totally different concept. God will not be mocked. For example, if a person claims to be in the Church by deed and not by faith, God will say to that person “I never knew you, away from me you evildoer.” (Matthew 7: 23) This does not sound very tolerant, does it? However, if a person confesses his sins and believes on Jesus Christ that person will be saved. I KNOW this personal savior and you can too.
I do not intend to pester you on these points. If you are not interested I will, as I have up to now, resist making spiritual comments on this and other threads here at brainstorms. Know that if you make spiritual comments like “I am in the Church of God” or “God is dead” I will respond in that same realm. This is only fair.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. November 2006 15:40
I have never renounced Jesus or a living God. What I have claimed is that as far as I can determine, God or Gods are no longer alive and I have proceeded as a scientist on that premise. No one, and I mean no one, knows whether God or Gods are alive or dead. All religions, especially Darwinism, are based on undemonstrable assumptions. It is called faith. Even Christ wavered in that faith.
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Matthew 27:47, New American Bible, The Official Catholic Bible.
I repeat - there is no place for religion in science. There never has been and there never will be. If it pleases you, feel free to regard me as a hypocrite. It won't upset me in the least. Perhaps I am. At least I am not a Darwinian mystic or a Bible-waving Protestant Fundamentalist.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. November 2006 17:38
Martin, posting as VMartin at Panda's Thumb.
Keep right on letting them have it at After The Bar Closes. Their shabby responses to you are the best evidence that you have reached them. Don't be surprised if they ban you. Consider it a tribute if they do. They are cowards just as all are that must muzzle, abuse, denigrate or ban their real or imagined adversaries. EvC, ARN, Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb, Uncommon Descent - there is not a dimes worth of difference between them. Thank the Lord for "Brainstorms." Let us hope it does not succumb to the "groupthink" disease, a common fate for internet forums.
Thanks again.
I hope others will witness the sad situation that has overtaken so many internet forums and publicly condemn it as I do. It is a scandal.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 17. November 2006 18:44
I agree there is no place for religion in science.
Allow me to clear up one more point of confusion you seem to have concerning Scripture. As brilliant as you are behind the microscope is as dimly it appears you see spiritual Truths. Let me explain.
“Peas porridge hot, …” Tell the truth. When you hear those three words you can not help to finish the rhyme. So it was with those Jews gathered around Jesus at the cross as He took His last breaths. You see those words “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me …” are the first words of Psalm 22. He lacked the physical strength to say much yet as always He wished to convey His role in salvation to those around Him. These few words were a powerful testimony as to who He was and what was going on right before their eyes. To see exactly how powerful one must read the entire Psalm 22 and thus get an inkling of how Jesus was witnessing to those who stood there mocking Him. They all would have known the Psalm by heart, so much so, that the words of the entire Psalm would have resonated in their minds as they witnessed the very same events in person that day. I get chills every time I think of how they must have felt.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. November 2006 20:22
Thank you Mel. I am impressed with your sincerity and I am sorry if I have disappointed you. I don't know what else to say.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. December 2006 07:03
Martin
Join me at Alan Fox's blog -
alanfox.blogspot.com/
I could use your assistance. I invite others to witness this demonstration of the sad state of the origins debate, a debate that should never have taken place.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. January 2007 04:54
Kazmer Ujvarosy has introduced this essay at the January 10 issue of American Chronicle.
A past evoltion is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 10. January 2007, 04:56: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. January 2007 00:36
Thank you Kaz for presenting "The Darwinian Delusion." on my behalf.
I have just read your other paper and agree with much of it. It is inconceivable that one or more "Creators" did not once exist. That was the thrust of my thread which I presented at Dawkins' fan club some time ago under the title -
"God or Gods are dead but must have once existed."
That thread evoked over 60,000 views in the very few days before I was banned from further participation. I am still not allowed to even view their proceedings.
That thread title is also implicit in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
As a scientist it is very important never to postulate any more than is absolutely necessary to account for a phenomenon. We know it as Occam's Razor or the Principle of Parsimony.
While it is mandatory to accept one or more Creators with intelligence far beyond our capacity to even imagine, it is not necessary nor is there any evidence that they are still present. We also have no idea how many independent creations were involved nor how many subsequent front-loadings were involved. At present there is plenty of reason to postulate several such events and that will remain a possibility until a past reproductive continuity can be established between the many life forms we now see in the organic world. That, at present, is completely out of the question. I am inclined at present to favor Leo Berg's assessment -
"Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically."
Nomogenesis, page 406
I realize this seems radical but in fact it is very conservative. What is radical is to assume that for which considerable evidence does not yet exist. The origin and subsequent evolution of life is miraculous and a thousand miracles are no more miraculous than one.
Thanks again Kazmer for the help and for your own perspective on what remains the greatest mystery in all of biological science, organic evolution.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
JT75
Member
Member # 3262
|
posted 12. January 2007 14:52
John,
I was just wondering how you explain the nature of your own existence without positing a God who is continually the cause of your becoming? To explain, there is a difference between your essence (the properties that make you what you are), your existence (the fact that you are), and your existing (the continuity of the fact that you are).
I believe Aquinas points out that if one does not have existence as part of one's essence then one has to be "caused to be" from another. (If you had existence as part of your essence then that fact that you are would be a part of what it means to be you, hence you would have always existed). But the human essence is not like this, nor is the essence of any other created being, therefore the ground of our existence (our current existence and our continuing act of existing) is caused by another. This cannot be answered by pointing to our immediate biological origins (our parents) for if they die we can still continue existing (so they are not the cause). I think it is metaphysically compelling that if there is a Creator whose nature (very essence) it is to exist, then He is a possible ground for our continuing existence. Without such a ground I fail to see a satisfying answer to the question.
If this is true, then you have evidence (philosophical) for the continuing activity of the Creator.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. January 2007 15:20
JT75
I am not a philosopher and am unable to deal with such matters. Neither could Einstein.
"Upon reading books on philosophy, I learned that I stood there like a blind man in front of a painting. I can grasp only the inductive method...the works of speculative philosophy are beyond my reach."
Albert Einstein
"A past evolution is undeniable, a preset evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 12. January 2007 15:59
quote:
I am not a philosopher and am unable to deal with such matters. Neither could Einstein.
Martin Luther dismissed scholastic philosophy too. I suppose that philosophers of Orthodox church (Sergei Bulgakov who accepted evolution as the fact) do not follow Aquinas philosophy as well. Anyway they oppose darwinism strongly. On the other hand JT75 remarks conform with Psalms.
[ 12. January 2007, 16:30: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
JT75
Member
Member # 3262
|
posted 12. January 2007 19:07
John,
Fair enough, one should know the limits of his own mind. But are you open to philosophical discourse in general or do you merely choose to restrict your inquiry to the inductive method and science for building your worldview. The reason I ask is that I am currently considering this question in light of reading E.O. Wilson's "Consilience." I don't agree with conflating areas of study (they should retain their proper objects of inquiry), but in building a personal worldview, including as much truth and eliminating as much error as possible, is it proper to incorporate as many methods and fields of study as possible? Your thoughts...
Martin,
You're right, just about the time of Martin Luther the academic community was doing away with the scholastic way of thinking. As far as I can tell, it was because of Aristotle's obsolete system of physics in light of early modern science. But I cannot see when or how his or, following him, St. Thomas' views on metaphysics, ethics, or epistemology were ever logically refuted. It seems they just went out of fashion, especially in the time of Descartes. If this is true, then it does not seem epistemically unwarranted to rely on their princples or arguments.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. January 2007 19:24
I am just a retired physiologist interested in ontogeny and phylogeny. All that I can say is that I agree with Leo Berg -
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Nomogenesis, page 134.
If not chance, I say a Prescribed Evolution. I can imagine no other alternative. Can anyone?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic