Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
m00nshine2004

A Challenge

Recommended Posts

Both are Christians (Behe, a Catholic). Berlinski is not a scientist.

 

After three months no creationist on this creationist site has been able to meet the OP challenge to name "ONE secular scientist who does not accept Evolution".

 

Yet more blatant lying... The "challenge" was resolved on the first page... Please go READ the first page.

 

Great pic FC wink.png

 

 

 

I'm still waiting on m00nshine2004 to man up and finally concede that evolution is indeed a fairytale as a result of this challenge! fishing.gif

 

It would be a rare opportunity if he did.... Stop the presses; evolutionist admits he is wrong!!! GASP!

 

 

 

If I were to setup a website and forum, with the title "ChristianityFairyTale.com", and had a forum which had a section called "Creation vs Evolution" ...

 

then ... perhaps ... I could be accused of attempting to convert people to my "belief system".

 

But it appears to have been a Young Earth Creationist site, designed to convert people to your "belief system".

 

What is the problem? Evolutionists do exactly the same in the public school system.... All we are discussing here is the evidence for our beliefs and the evidence against the beliefs that oppose us... What is wrong with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the problem? Evolutionists do exactly the same in the public school system.... All we are discussing here is the evidence for our beliefs and the evidence against the beliefs that oppose us... What is wrong with that?

I started a thread for this...

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=6117&st=0&p=110678&do=findComment&comment=110678

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet more blatant lying... The "challenge" was resolved on the first page... Please go READ the first page.

Obviously a non-scientist doesn't qualify as "ONE secular scientist..."

 

How do fatuous, unfounded claims of "lying" reflect upon creationism or evangelical Christianity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sec·u·lar

/ˈsekyələr/

adjective

adjective: secular

1.

denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

"secular buildings"

synonyms: nonreligious, areligious, lay, temporal, worldly, earthly, profane; More

formallaic

"secular music"

antonyms: holy, religious

2.

Christian Church

(of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order.

 

:I have never met an evolutionary scientist that didn't believe in evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously a non-scientist doesn't qualify as "ONE secular scientist..."

 

How do fatuous, unfounded claims of "lying" reflect upon creationism or evangelical Christianity?

 

Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University.

 

http://www.davidberlinski.org/biography.php

 

 

Ok he is a philosopher of science, perhaps not a card carrying scientist... Though if you look up "what makes a scientist" you'll see various explanations stating it is simply having a temperment or curiosity for investigation.

 

Science relies on curiosity, experimentation, and evidence. As far as I’m concerned, anyone dedicated to these values can be a scientist in some sense, and they can take something meaningful from that. Science needs more people to be involved, or at least to be supportive of those that are. Denying anyone their sense of belonging on the basis that they haven’t personally predicted or discovered their own particle would surely just put people off. From a purely pragmatic point of view, ‘real’ scientists can’t afford to define themselves into a corner and alienate their supporters.

 

http://physicsfocus.org/alex-brown-anyone-dedicated-to-curiosity-experimentation-and-evidence-can-call-themselves-a-scientist/

 

 

 

 

 

But if you like, here are two atheist scientists...

 

 

All critics of Darwin are raving lunatics, fundamentalist Creationists or Right-wing zealots...

...or so many people are led to believe.

 

But is this actually true? Jerry Fodor, professor of philosophy and cognitive sciences at Rutgers University, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a professor of cognitive science at the University of Arizona, are living proof that this is a false stereotype. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, both atheist, co-authored the book "What Darwin God Wrong" and were recently interviewed about it.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/atheists-attack-darwinian-evolution-new-book

 

 

 

So it seems the false stereotype portrayed in the OP was in fact... false....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University.

 

http://www.davidberlinski.org/biography.php

 

 

Ok he is a philosopher of science, perhaps not a card carrying scientist... Though if you look up "what makes a scientist" you'll see various explanations stating it is simply having a temperment or curiosity for investigation.

 

Science relies on curiosity, experimentation, and evidence. As far as I’m concerned, anyone dedicated to these values can be a scientist in some sense, and they can take something meaningful from that. Science needs more people to be involved, or at least to be supportive of those that are. Denying anyone their sense of belonging on the basis that they haven’t personally predicted or discovered their own particle would surely just put people off. From a purely pragmatic point of view, ‘real’ scientists can’t afford to define themselves into a corner and alienate their supporters.

 

http://physicsfocus.org/alex-brown-anyone-dedicated-to-curiosity-experimentation-and-evidence-can-call-themselves-a-scientist/

 

 

 

 

 

But if you like, here are two atheist scientists...

 

 

All critics of Darwin are raving lunatics, fundamentalist Creationists or Right-wing zealots...

...or so many people are led to believe.

 

But is this actually true? Jerry Fodor, professor of philosophy and cognitive sciences at Rutgers University, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a professor of cognitive science at the University of Arizona, are living proof that this is a false stereotype. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, both atheist, co-authored the book "What Darwin God Wrong" and were recently interviewed about it.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/atheists-attack-darwinian-evolution-new-book

 

 

 

So it seems the false stereotype portrayed in the OP was in fact... false....

They do accept evolution. They simply think Darwin's particular model is wrong. From one of the editorial reviews in the amazon page linked to above:

 

The authors of this scattershot treatise believe in evolution, but think that the Darwinian model of adaptationism—that random genetic mutations, filtered by natural selection, produce traits that enhance fitness for a particular biological niche—is fatally flawed.

 

However, these authors being critical of Darwinian evolution doesn't mean they are correct.

 

Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne describes this book as "a profoundly misguided critique of natural selection"[21] and "as biologically uninformed as it is strident.",[22] while

In a review in Science Douglas J. Futuyma concluded:

Because they are prominent in their own fields, some readers may suppose that they are authorities on evolution who have written a profound and important book. They aren't, and it isn't.[23]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is the official creation story of the "secular" world. A "secular scientist" is by definition an evolutionist. The "challenge" in the OP is a disguised tautology. He is asking you to name an evolutionist that isn't an evolutionist which I will be the first to admit is quite difficult.

 

There are plenty of "secular scientists" who reject Neo-Darwinism, (the popular mechanistic theory of Evolution that is defended by most laymen evolutionists as if it were a 'fact'), but that is kind of a different subject and I think is causing some confusion here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the OP should have asked was name someone well known or famous that is a secular scientist. Do You really think out of 7 billion people and only a small percentage of those are "scientists", that not one would not believe in macro evolution? Do You think that every scientist adheres to the current mainstream belief in Darwinian type evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do accept evolution. They simply think Darwin's particular model is wrong. From one of the editorial reviews in the amazon page linked to above:

 

Quote

The authors of this scattershot treatise believe in evolution, but think that the Darwinian model of adaptationism—that random genetic mutations, filtered by natural selection, produce traits that enhance fitness for a particular biological niche—is fatally flawed.

 

Sounds like they believe in "evolution" the same as Creationists do... Genetic variation etc.

 

However, these authors being critical of Darwinian evolution doesn't mean they are correct.

 

Who said they were correct?

 

 

 

Evolution is the official creation story of the "secular" world. A "secular scientist" is by definition an evolutionist. The "challenge" in the OP is a disguised tautology. He is asking you to name an evolutionist that isn't an evolutionist which I will be the first to admit is quite difficult.

 

Ah good point. Guess I and others fell for that trap rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is the official creation story of the "secular" world. A "secular scientist" is by definition an evolutionist. The "challenge" in the OP is a disguised tautology. He is asking you to name an evolutionist that isn't an evolutionist which I will be the first to admit is quite difficult.

 

There are plenty of "secular scientists" who reject Neo-Darwinism, (the popular mechanistic theory of Evolution that is defended by most laymen evolutionists as if it were a 'fact'), but that is kind of a different subject and I think is causing some confusion here.

 

biggrin.png That's why I have never chimed in on this thread. The OP is fundamentally flawed. It's like demanding that you present an atheist who believes in God, or demonstrate a natural miracle. Cheeseburger seems to think with his drive by posting that there is some significance to the fact that we can't draw a square circle. think.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sec·u·lar

/ˈsekyələr/

adjective

adjective: secular

1.

denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

"secular buildings"

synonyms: nonreligious, areligious, lay, temporal, worldly, earthly, profane; More

formallaic

"secular music"

antonyms: holy, religious

2.

Christian Church

(of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order.

 

:I have never met an evolutionary scientist that didn't believe in evolution.

Evolutionary scientsts don't believe in evolution. They study evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Berlinski's PhD is not in science, but in philosophy. He has no background in any of the science that impact on the study of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Evolutionary scientsts don't believe in evolution. They study evolution.

Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_32913
It seems that there's an awful lot of that going on around here. Great picture!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were to setup a website and forum, with the title "ChristianityFairyTale.com", and had a forum which had a section called "Creation vs Evolution" ...

 

then ... perhaps ... I could be accused of attempting to convert people to my "belief system".

 

But it appears to have been a Young Earth Creationist site, designed to convert people to your "belief system".

 

I think CreationismFairyTale would be the proper parallel, and I could see that happening. That is in essence what many evolutionists believe and state very forcefully.

 

And what's wrong with trying to convert to your point of view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolutionary scientsts don't believe in evolution. They study evolution.

A more honest approach would be to study origins,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think CreationismFairyTale would be the proper parallel, and I could see that happening. That is in essence what many evolutionists believe and state very forcefully.

 

And what's wrong with trying to convert to your point of view?

Nothing at all, I don't criticise anyone for trying. I just thought it amusing and a little ironic that Calypsis was saying "They only thing they are interested in is converting people on this board to their hopeless, futureless belief system.", when it's really the other way round on this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing at all, I don't criticise anyone for trying. I just thought it amusing and a little ironic that Calypsis was saying "They only thing they are interested in is converting people on this board to their hopeless, futureless belief system.", when it's really the other way round on this site.

 

How can it be "the other way round" when you conduct the same?

 

Both do the same thing, except evolutionists complain when we do it... and expect evolutionists should be allowed to even to children aged 5... and with tax funds which are supposed to go towards schooling...

 

Children as young as five should have lessons in the basic principles of evolution, a leading atheist has said.

 

Professor Richard Dawkins claims Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is so important that every primary school in Britain should have it on their curriculum, he told The Times.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032485/Teach-year-olds-Darwins-theory-evolution-says-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How can it be "the other way round" when you conduct the same?

 

Both do the same thing, except evolutionists complain when we do it... and expect evolutionists should be allowed to even to children aged 5... and with tax funds which are supposed to go towards schooling...

 

Children as young as five should have lessons in the basic principles of evolution, a leading atheist has said.

 

Professor Richard Dawkins claims Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is so important that every primary school in Britain should have it on their curriculum, he told The Times.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032485/Teach-year-olds-Darwins-theory-evolution-says-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html

It wasn't me who was complaining, I was laughing at Calypsis complaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How can it be "the other way round" when you conduct the same?

 

Both do the same thing, except evolutionists complain when we do it... and expect evolutionists should be allowed to even to children aged 5... and with tax funds which are supposed to go towards schooling...

 

Children as young as five should have lessons in the basic principles of evolution, a leading atheist has said.

 

Professor Richard Dawkins claims Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is so important that every primary school in Britain should have it on their curriculum, he told The Times.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032485/Teach-year-olds-Darwins-theory-evolution-says-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html

I thought teaching science qualified as "schooling"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought teaching science qualified as "schooling"?

 

The belief of evolution isn't science... Its simply a worldview.

 

Whether someone believes evolution or not, it has little to no relevance outside of itself.... A doctor / geneticist / biotechnologist / etc can still be proficient in their field even without a belief in evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The belief of evolution isn't science... Its simply a worldview.

 

Whether someone believes evolution or not, it has little to no relevance outside of itself.... A doctor / geneticist / biotechnologist / etc can still be proficient in their field even without a belief in evolution.

Of course it is science, it is part of biology, and it is taught as such, at least in our schools. That some people don't agree with evolution doesn't mean it isn't science. Similarly, that some people disagree about every other area of science doesn't negate it's qualification as science. And then there's the dreaded scientific consensus ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it is science, it is part of biology, and it is taught as such, at least in our schools. That some people don't agree with evolution doesn't mean it isn't science. Similarly, that some people disagree about every other area of science doesn't negate it's qualification as science. And then there's the dreaded scientific consensus ...

 

Then why does it defy the scientific method?

 

Why is the belief of evolution based on assumption NOT data? (as per this thread http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=6002&page=5 )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms