God and Science

@lemonjello said
There is no need to respond to this speaker’s points, since the scientific community has already refuted them. The only relevant “evidence” presented here is regurgitation of Behe’s claims of irreducible complexity (IC). Behe’s arguments never made much sense to begin with, since it follows rather straightforwardly from his very own definition of IC and some basic evolut ...[text shortened]... do not add the disingenuity of having an embarrassingly selective commitment to scientific methods!

No need to respond, you are pathetic, you go on and on about a discussion on the nature of explanation talking about there is no evidence/proof for God in it when that wasn't the topic, and when I give you something you stick your head in the sand and say someone else, someplace else addressed these.

Why do you bother to respond to me if you are just going to blow off the things I say and not address them and bring up things I didn't say and address? I'm not the one denigrating science, I have been giving cause for my views, you are simply alluding to others without names or specifics as if that is a point worth making, without addressing the points yourself.

Scientific methods are not the issue here, people with strong religious views are also scientists with Nobel prizes behind their names. You are pushing a reality that can only be understood by our senses as if nothing outside of them could play apart since the only thing science can look at is the material world, it's a nice hiding place for those things it cannot account for.

The material world and the immaterial world are both part of our universe. Which came first? Do you have a clue that you can bring to the discussion without simply suggesting someone somewhere else knows? Which is primary, and which is derivative?

@kellyjay said

No need to respond, you are pathetic,

You conveniently truncated my response which clarified that the reason there is no need to respond is because it has already been refuted. Should I respond to models regarding phlogiston and geocentricism too?

There is a mountain of good evolutionary science refuted by nothing and somehow you dismiss all that and instead opt for “evidence” in the form of Behe’s claims that have been refuted soundly. That is what is pathetic here. Your selective endorsements and dismissals of the science are scandalous.

you go on and on about a discussion on the nature of explanation talking about there is no evidence/proof for God in it when that wasn't the topic

As I said, the discussion here regards what counts as explanation, and I have been on topic throughout (unlike your “faith” drivel). If you cannot see how discussion of background evidence for the existence of the entity that you are invoking in your emergent explanation is relevant, then maybe that is why you and Lennox are not doing it properly. Let’s go back to his example of a pot of boiling water. One proposed explanation could be that a human wanted some tea and took actions to bring it about; another could be that an invisible elf wanted some tea and took actions to bring it about. You see any problem that plagues the latter but not the former?

I'm not the one denigrating science, I have been giving cause for my views,

You denigrate science with your shameful selective skepticism of its deliverances. And I am not sure what you mean by “giving cause” for your view, but you have provided no support for your views worth taking seriously. You have provided a lot of personal incredulity where you just cannot seem to understand how it could all play out without a God; but, again, your incredulity does not constitute an argument or evidence. As such, I am also not surprised you have latched on to the junk science of IC and intelligent design, since in practice it often collapses to an argument from incredulity in the form of one just cannot grasp how a particular biological system could have evolved.

Scientific methods are not the issue here, people with strong religious views are also scientists with Nobel prizes behind their names.

Scientific methods are in part the issue here because we use that as an example of explanatory platform that implements methodological quality controls and regulations in a proper way, and we use this as a point of contrast to show just how impoverished is the Lennoxian alternative approach.

Of course there are accomplished scientists who are strongly religious — nothing I have said implies otherwise. But they accomplished what they did in the field of science despite their religious convictions. The history of mankind is littered with examples of religious “explanations” for worldly phenomena that were totally wrong and later supplanted with scientific ones; there are no examples going in the other direction. In understanding our universe, science has done all the lifting and religion has done jack squat whenever it did not just get in the way. Lennox, to his credit, admits most of this with his discourse on the failure of gods of the gap; somehow he thinks his approach is better at imparting explanation but that is the part he gets wrong.

You are pushing a reality that can only be understood by our senses as if nothing outside of them could play apart since the only thing science can look at is the material world,

Again, your reading comprehension blows. I am pushing a critique of Lennox’s claims, as I already laid out clearly. Part of that is comparing his approach against science to, again, make clear the impoverishment of his approach regarding divine “explanation”.

Your bit about material vs immaterial worlds is more hijacking of your own thread. I have no commitment to the existence of any immaterial world and see no evidence for such a thing. Whether or not such a thing could be studied by science in principle depends on whether it has manifestations in reality (and if it were not to have any manifestations in reality whatsoever, then how could we care about it?). You’re the one who needs to worry about how to justify the existence of the immaterial, given that your view invokes the existence of an immaterial divine disembodied mind. I wish you Godspeed with that.

@lemonjello said

No need to respond, you are pathetic,

You conveniently truncated my response which clarified that the reason there is no need to respond is because it has already been refuted. Should I respond to models regarding phlogiston and geocentricism too?

There is a mountain of good evolutionary science refuted by nothing and somehow you dismiss all that a ...[text shortened]... view invokes the existence of an immaterial divine disembodied mind. I wish you Godspeed with that.

Evidence is all fine and good, but what we say that the evidence means is what matters. You leave out the justification that is what matters not that we see things we think prove our points. There assumptions come into play big time, things taking on faith.

@lemonjello said

No need to respond, you are pathetic,

You conveniently truncated my response which clarified that the reason there is no need to respond is because it has already been refuted. Should I respond to models regarding phlogiston and geocentricism too?

There is a mountain of good evolutionary science refuted by nothing and somehow you dismiss all that a ...[text shortened]... view invokes the existence of an immaterial divine disembodied mind. I wish you Godspeed with that.

"There is a mountain of good evolutionary science refuted by nothing and somehow you dismiss all that and instead opt for “evidence” in the form of Behe’s claims that have been refuted soundly. That is what is pathetic here. Your selective endorsements and dismissals of the science are scandalous. "

You brought up Behe, not me, why you are going on off on what I think about him is a mystery to me.

@lemonjello said

No need to respond, you are pathetic,

You conveniently truncated my response which clarified that the reason there is no need to respond is because it has already been refuted. Should I respond to models regarding phlogiston and geocentricism too?

There is a mountain of good evolutionary science refuted by nothing and somehow you dismiss all that a ...[text shortened]... view invokes the existence of an immaterial divine disembodied mind. I wish you Godspeed with that.

"As I said, the discussion here regards what counts as explanation, and I have been on topic throughout (unlike your “faith” drivel). If you cannot see how discussion of background evidence for the existence of the entity that you are invoking in your emergent explanation is relevant, then maybe that is why you and Lennox are not doing it properly. Let’s go back to his example of a pot of boiling water. One proposed explanation could be that a human wanted some tea and took actions to bring it about; another could be that an invisible elf wanted some tea and took actions to bring it about. You see any problem that plagues the latter but not the former?"

I don't think you even have a clue about what 'faith' means, you more than likely just have redefined the word to make it something about blind faith in religious terms, redefining words to belittle what I have said about it is sad. Faith has to do with fidelity which should also be applied to everything we trust from how we look at science, best friends, banks, or anything else we take on faith.

@lemonjello said

No need to respond, you are pathetic,

You conveniently truncated my response which clarified that the reason there is no need to respond is because it has already been refuted. Should I respond to models regarding phlogiston and geocentricism too?

There is a mountain of good evolutionary science refuted by nothing and somehow you dismiss all that a ...[text shortened]... view invokes the existence of an immaterial divine disembodied mind. I wish you Godspeed with that.

"Scientific methods are in part the issue here because we use that as an example of explanatory platform that implements methodological quality controls and regulations in a proper way, and we use this as a point of contrast to show just how impoverished is the Lennoxian alternative approach."

Of course there are accomplished scientists who are strongly religious — nothing I have said implies otherwise. But they accomplished what they did in the field of science despite their religious convictions. The history of mankind is littered with examples of religious “explanations” for worldly phenomena that were totally wrong and later supplanted with scientific ones; there are no examples going in the other direction. In understanding our universe, science has done all the lifting and religion has done jack squat whenever it did not just get in the way. Lennox, to his credit, admits most of this with his discourse on the failure of gods of the gap; somehow he thinks his approach is better at imparting explanation but that is the part he gets wrong."

I'm not suggesting anything bad about science, never have, it has limitations I rely on it as much as the next guy. You must start with a known good to troubleshoot if you don't know what good looks like any claim is as good as the next.

Junk science like disinformation is defined by what you like and dislike, they are not about the methodologies used, the methods can be the same, and the outcomes can still be characterized as junk or true science. So it is not really about the method looking for the best explanation, but one's prior assumptions. You will not trust science if you are not willing to accept the possibility that your assumptions can be wrong. If you can acknowledge design in something you see, but reject what your eyes see and call it an illusion, it isn't evidence or science that is causing you to hold onto your beliefs.

If it is only because of the conclusions that one comes up that will define something as either science or junk science, then the methods of any experiment will be meaningless. What will called science or junk science will be the faith of the looking to see what they want to see. Defining what you read to be true is information, misinformation, sound science, or junk science your faith is what you are going to use to make that judgment call. You walk into every experience with faith, these are truths, and with them, we can confirm what else is true, that is walking in faith.

@kellyjay said
"Scientific methods are in part the issue here because we use that as an example of explanatory platform that implements methodological quality controls and regulations in a proper way, and we use this as a point of contrast to show just how impoverished is the Lennoxian alternative approach."

Of course there are accomplished scientists who are strongly religious — nothin ...[text shortened]... faith, these are truths, and with them, we can confirm what else is true, that is walking in faith.

Impressive word-salad there Kellyjay.

@kellyjay said
Evidence is all fine and good, but what we say that the evidence means is what matters. You leave out the justification that is what matters not that we see things we think prove our points. There assumptions come into play big time, things taking on faith.

Well KJ, it’s been real. Real what I am not sure.

I do not see a point in continuing with this bizarro-world discussion. You posted the original Lennox video, toward which I leveled completely germane critique and raised legitimate counterpoints that you have been either unwilling or incapable of addressing. And you continuously accuse me of being off-topic, whereas all the while it is painfully obvious that you are the one hijacking your own thread. Then you posted another video my way that you prefaced as being “evidence”, in which the claims of Behe are explicitly cited and discussed. Then when I point out that Behe’s claims have been refuted, you accuse me of smuggling Behe into the discussion and you pretend you have no idea why the name came up. Just bizarre behavior on your part.

At the end of the day, you just want to avoid addressing the actual issues and instead claim that it all just boils down to “faith” and pretend like that absolves you from having to defend the Lennoxian approach to “explanation”. Well, it does not boil down to faith, and even if it did (under some absurdly broad umbrella usage of ‘faith’ ), that would not render all explanative approaches equal.

You and Lennox can keep your religious “explanation” of projecting divine agency onto worldly phenomena. I’ll stick with other methods that actually, you know, work.

@lemonjello said
Well KJ, it’s been real. Real what I am not sure.

I do not see a point in continuing with this bizarro-world discussion. You posted the original Lennox video, toward which I leveled completely germane critique and raised legitimate counterpoints that you have been either unwilling or incapable of addressing. And you continuously accuse me of being off-topic, ...[text shortened]... g divine agency onto worldly phenomena. I’ll stick with other methods that actually, you know, work.

The only thing I got out of our talk is that you never entered the discussion on the points of the talk. Lennox was talking about the nature of explanation how both agency and the laws of science could both be true at the same time, one does not void the other, and you wished to turn it into something else.

You were, and have been off-topic, and still are as far as I'm concerned. You brought up Behe, not me, and made an argument about explanations claiming to refute him, I didn't say squat about Behe and his claims, and you need to be specific to say what he said and how it was refuted, without that you've said nothing, quite lazy on your part, avoiding specifics of that claims explanation while making a claim.

Lennox didn't make any claims that one type of explanation was superior to the others only that there were different types, but you seem to think otherwise. If you don't think my wanting hot water to make coffee is an explanation it is so obvious you simply are not looking at reality, you have something else going on, apart from the world we live in.

You have been arguing against something I nor Lennox has said or suggested and you are so caught up in that you cannot even see it.

@kellyjay said
The only thing I got out of our talk is that you never entered the discussion on the points of the talk. Lennox was talking about the nature of explanation how both agency and the laws of science could both be true at the same time, one does not void the other, and you wished to turn it into something else.

You were, and have been off-topic, and still are as far as I'm c ...[text shortened]... omething I nor Lennox has said or suggested and you are so caught up in that you cannot even see it.

Wow.

@lemonjello said
Wow.

Please did you even watch that other link before you blew it off suggesting it was debunked? I have my doubts you did, you never addressed my question which was primarily and which is derivative material or immaterial either. One more thing without explanation in a thread about explanations, but you brought up Behe for reasons unknown to me.

@kellyjay said
Please did you even watch that other link before you blew it off suggesting it was debunked? I have my doubts you did, you never addressed my question which was primarily and which is derivative material or immaterial either. One more thing without explanation in a thread about explanations, but you brought up Behe for reasons unknown to me.

Did you even watch the link you posted? Please go back (pg 13 of this thread) and watch it again and do not skip over time stamp 4:50 especially. What do you hear and see? I’m sorry that I appear to know more about the junk science literature that you peddle than you do, but that talk is nothing more, nothing less than regurgitation of Behe’s claims regarding IC. The talk references the concept of IC throughout; it mentions Behe by name; it mentions one of Behe’s books by name; it explicitly talks about the bacterial flagellum putative example of IC and explicitly references it to Behe; it explicitly calls Behe and his work the “icon” of the intelligent design movement.

But, sure, I am the one in this discussion who brought Behe up out of thin air inexplicably. You really are something, KJ. Go rewatch your own video link and have fun eating crow!

@lemonjello said
Did you even watch the link you posted? Please go back (pg 13 of this thread) and watch it again and do not skip over time stamp 4:50 especially. What do you hear and see? I’m sorry that I appear to know more about the junk science literature that you peddle than you do, but that talk is nothing more, nothing less than regurgitation of Behe’s claims regarding IC. ...[text shortened]... xplicably. You really are something, KJ. Go rewatch your own video link and have fun eating crow!

Apologies, I was wrong about that, but nothing I said had anything to do with Behe, and his bacterial flagellum example didn't occur to me it was in the second link. I do beg to differ that his example has been debunked, it has been disagreed with, but the whole point of design is. I believe it was said it was comprised of different pieces all coming together to form it to do specific work not randomly done. Any more than start-stop mechanisms, level checking, and various systems being integrated into one lifeform for life.

I apologize, I was overly harsh with you, my bad, I was wrong to do it.

@lemonjello said
Did you even watch the link you posted? Please go back (pg 13 of this thread) and watch it again and do not skip over time stamp 4:50 especially. What do you hear and see? I’m sorry that I appear to know more about the junk science literature that you peddle than you do, but that talk is nothing more, nothing less than regurgitation of Behe’s claims regarding IC. ...[text shortened]... xplicably. You really are something, KJ. Go rewatch your own video link and have fun eating crow!

You do seem to take one point of each of the discussions and beat them as if they were the whole point of the whole thing. As you did with Lennox you are doing with the Wallace talk, Wallace was about evidence and how we use it to connect various pieces of it to a single suspect in a murder case, making the talk about how what we see shows what was done in the universe could not be responsible for the universe itself. You took one example disagreed with it and threw out the whole thing, making the whole discussion that point which is a point of contention not one that has been debunked. Your use of the term junk science I suspect is what you use for when what is done doesn't line up with your worldview.

@kellyjay saidYour use of the term junk science I suspect is what you use for when what is done doesn't line up with your worldview.

But there WAS a literal talking snake … right!?