Des News - Believers Finding God in Science

[_krose]

Evolutionary biology is not a problem if one is educated [at] BYU.

Since they teach evolution as fact at BYU, I can only assume they accept the idea of 'guided evolution,' one of the most bizarre beliefs in existence.

They don't teach "guided" evolution, they just teach evolution. Whether it's guided is not a topic for a science class.

I'm afraid you have not understood the comment. I didn't say the Biology instructors at BYU teach 'guided evolution,' but that they (and the students who trust them) must necessarily believe that evolution was used as the means of creation, if they are still faithful Mormons who believe in LDS prophets and scriptures.

You see, the tip-off was the underlined phrase above, "they accept the idea," which, believe it or not, actually has a slightly different meaning than "teach." I know English can be confusing that way.

Have you had a science class before?

Wow, you got me. How embarrassing to be one of the only people in America who managed to get through seven years of post-secondary education without taking a single science class. Your powers of deduction are truly impressive. Your high self-valuation is certainly deserved.

Your other assertions, well, let's just say I don't like discussing science with people with no scientific background.

You can say that if you wish. But since my comment was not actually discussing science, but religious spin, you don't need to worry about sullying your superior scientific intellect in this case. You can safely deign to discuss this particular twist on creationism (which, as someone with your high level of knowledge surely knows, is not science in any way) without worrying about casting your precious pearls of scientific knowledge before uneducated swine.

But I will say this: you are clueless about Mormons and evolution.

Oh, so I'm wrong when I say that most LDS do not accept evolution as fact, and that those few who do accept it believe God used it as a tool for creation? I hope you will lower your discussion standards just enough to explain where this is wrong.

[_Runtu]

The most damning critiques of Dawkins have come from atheist intellectuals. He is trying to push atheism on the masses, so he uses buzzwords and simplistic arguments that get parroted on the internet (sometimes here).

nc47,

One may not agree with Dawkin's style, but that does not mean that he is not right. And when it comes to his critique of non-overlapping magisteria, he is clearly correct. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue the point.

And if you think that the quote from the NAS that I identified as a version of NOMA, was not a form of the NOMA argument, then I suggest that you look up NOMA and then read the passage from the NAS again.

Does anyone find nc47's post to be eerily similar to one by Hamilton Porter on the other board? I was going to say something about the utter lack of substance in the post over there, but then I wondered why I should bother. Here's the other post:

The atheism of Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche, etc. was confined to intellectual circles. The New Atheism is attempting to push it on the masses, mostly to college graduates. The most scathing critiques of New Atheist books have come from atheists themselves, who believe their arguments are naiive, overly simplistic, straw men, and throw atheists into disrepute. But that's the point, right? You want commoners to embrace atheism, so you use buzzwords, ride the wave of current events like 9-11 and the Catholic priest scandal. A lot of boneheads are parroting their simplistic arguments on the internet, so the strategy is working.

[_palerobber]

The most damning critiques of Dawkins have come from atheist intellectuals. He is trying to push atheism on the masses, so he uses buzzwords and simplistic arguments that get parroted on the internet (sometimes here).

Does anyone find nc47's post to be eerily similar to one by Hamilton Porter on the other board? I was going to say something about the utter lack of substance in the post over there, but then I wondered why I should bother. Here's the other post:

The atheism of Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche, etc. was confined to intellectual circles. The New Atheism is attempting to push it on the masses, mostly to college graduates. The most scathing critiques of New Atheist books have come from atheists themselves, who believe their arguments are naiive, overly simplistic, straw men, and throw atheists into disrepute. But that's the point, right? You want commoners to embrace atheism, so you use buzzwords, ride the wave of current events like 9-11 and the Catholic priest scandal. A lot of boneheads are parroting their simplistic arguments on the internet, so the strategy is working.

wow, bullseye!

[_DrW]

Does anyone find nc47's post to be eerily similar to one by Hamilton Porter on the other board? I was going to say something about the utter lack of substance in the post over there, but then I wondered why I should bother. Here's the other post:

The atheism of Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche, etc. was confined to intellectual circles. The New Atheism is attempting to push it on the masses, mostly to college graduates. The most scathing critiques of New Atheist books have come from atheists themselves, who believe their arguments are naiive, overly simplistic, straw men, and throw atheists into disrepute. But that's the point, right? You want commoners to embrace atheism, so you use buzzwords, ride the wave of current events like 9-11 and the Catholic priest scandal. A lot of boneheads are parroting their simplistic arguments on the internet, so the strategy is working.

Runtu,

Good catch. The threads over there, in general, are pretty anemic, aren't they?

Most seem to be mainly one or two sentence posts promoting one version of unfounded belief over another. No wonder Hamilton Porter wanted to come over here to "strut his stuff."

One thing that struck me about his posts on the other board was his avatar, which seems highly indicative of his posting style and content.

[_Runtu]

Runtu,

Good catch. The threads over there, in general, are pretty anemic, aren't they?

Most seem to be mainly one or two sentence posts promoting one version of unfounded belief over another. No wonder Hamilton Porter wanted to come over here to "strut his stuff."

One thing that struck me about his posts on the other board was his avatar, which seems highly indicative of his posting style and content.

Content? The post over there was just a string of vague, nonspecific assertions. What is one supposed to say in response? If that's strutting his stuff, I'd hate to see what he comes up with on a bad day.

[_DrW]

Runtu,

Good catch. The threads over there, in general, are pretty anemic, aren't they?

Most seem to be mainly one or two sentence posts promoting one version of unfounded belief over another. No wonder Hamilton Porter wanted to come over here to "strut his stuff."

One thing that struck me about his posts on the other board was his avatar, which seems highly indicative of his posting style and content.

Content? The post over there was just a string of vague, nonspecific assertions. What is one supposed to say in response? If that's strutting his stuff, I'd hate to see what he comes up with on a bad day.

From his assertions and responses on this thread, I would say he just had one.

Although Palerobber did hold out a fig leaf of sorts. I hope nc47/Hamilton Porter appreciated that.

[_Runtu]

From his assertions and responses on this thread, I would say he just had one.

Although Palerobber did hold out a fig leaf of sorts. I hope nc47/Hamilton Porter appreciated that.

He may well be a bright guy and have an interesting perspective. Generally, in a crowded room, the guy wearing a t-shirt that says "I'm the smart guy" is not usually the person you want to talk to. And he's almost always not even close to the smartest guy in the room.

[_nc47]

The most damning critiques of Dawkins have come from atheist intellectuals. He is trying to push atheism on the masses, so he uses buzzwords and simplistic arguments that get parroted on the internet (sometimes here).

nc47,

One may not agree with Dawkin's style, but that does not mean that he is not right. And when it comes to his critique of non-overlapping magisteria, he is clearly correct. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue the point.

And if you think that the quote from the NAS that I identified as a version of NOMA, was not a form of the NOMA argument, then I suggest that you look up NOMA and then read the passage from the NAS again.

Atheist intellectuals didn't just blast his style, it was the substance of his book. For example, he didn't know that St. Augustine disavowed Biblical literalism 500 A.D. He didn't know that Young Earth Creationism started in the 1920s. That's quite embarrassing.

Read what I said about the statement again, this time paying close attention to the bolded letters.

[Guest]

Atheist intellectuals didn't just blast his style, it was the substance of his book. For example, he didn't know that St. Augustine disavowed Biblical literalism 500 A.D. He didn't know that Young Earth Creationism started in the 1920s. That's quite embarrassing.

Read what I said about the statement again, this time paying close attention to the bolded letters.

Utterly beside the point.

The question is; do the magisteria of religion and science overlap, or not?

Dawkins claims the two overlap, and he is right. And the overlap is self evident.

by the way, I do not consider myself a "follower" of Dawkins. I was working as a professional scientist, and saw things pretty much as Dawkins sees them, for decades before Dawkins came on the popular scene. His observations about religion and science, and his comments on issues such as NOMA, are nothing really new to most scientists. Dawkins is simply one of those who finally got annoyed enough at all the religioinist nonsense to write about these issues for the lay person.

by the way, have you thought about internal inconsistency in your statement above to the effect that you believe in the methodology of science but want to wait to see how everything fits together (presumably as revealed by the Mormon Man-God in some imaginary afterlife)?

[Guest]

As I understand it, the good Boo bought a degree in Whalution first, which came with stamps you collect at gas stations. Once he had nough stamps he traded them for bit coins which, in turn, he used to buy his Raccoonomics Diploma. It is rumoured he is working on a masters in pulled pork barbeque but that's only a rumour at this stage.

(Ceebs, you know we love ya, right?)

Ceeboo,

Yes, we do love ya, my friend.

(Maybe we should start making fun of Bazooka's British spelling now.)

You could....but it's you guys who are abusing the Queen's English!
(Perhaps it's time you got back to using the mother tongue....)