Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

Discussion in 'The Voting Booth' started by KO2134, Aug 27, 2013.

?

Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

  1. Yes

    46 vote(s)
    50.0%
  2. No

    32 vote(s)
    34.8%
  3. Unsure

    7 vote(s)
    7.6%
  4. Need more information

    7 vote(s)
    7.6%
  1. jjjjjggggg

    jjjjjggggg Premium Member

    252
    155
    63
    Usually it's me laughing and my wife calling me a big nerd.
     
  2. ej6267

    ej6267 Registered User

    50
    5
    8
    Actually, Darwin's name was in points 7 and 9, and I still am not sure if you are objecting to evolution. Or are you objecting to Darwin as a person, or what exactly is the point of contention?
     
  3. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    Did i miss them? Oh I see now I guess I missed them because natural slection was not really Darwin and 9 just did not hit me as important.

    My point is "I just reject how Darwin and his buddies used of it for polictics". (it is Evolution)
     
  4. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    How did you change your name to ej6267?
     
  5. ej6267

    ej6267 Registered User

    50
    5
    8
    That's been my handle all along.


    Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
     
  6. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,378
    133
    I started my career at JPL/NASA and not all of the space scientists there understood what science actually is. They were very good at their part of it, but knowing a part does not equal knowing the whole. As much I am never surprised when anyone misses some f the principles of science, full time scientist through high school dropout.

    By your fruit shall ye be known. The milder majority among the agnostics and atheists have every bit as much need to reign in their extremists as we of faith have to reign in our extremists.

    I have written on why it is not irrational to believe in the existance of deity. That's it's own entire long, boring and complex thread.

    The atomic theory of chemistry (inroganic chemistry) and the modern dogma of molecular biology (also known as Darwian evolution) have similar amounts of supporting evidence. We don't find fundies ranting against inorganic chemistry but we do find them opposing evolution.

    I suggest you have the arrow of effect and cause pointing in the wrong direction. Science is a process that works with evidence via mathematics and experimentation. There is no scientific process to object to anything religion teaches. The opposition comes exclusively from the direction of some religions. Which ones and why bring us to discussion of sectarian religion that belongs elsewhere, but the direction of the battle as to who is attacker and who is attacked is clear. Science is not the attacker and evolution is not a strategy to teach atheism no matter how much certain folks think that. Science is an evidence based process.

    Being among Masons you are among men of faith. Clearly we are not among those who say that the successful predictions of the theory should be used to deny theism. As such I don't get your point. You conflate two disjoint sets of people then question upon your mistaken conflation.

    And here you mix politics into the discussion. Yes, there exist political movements that do as you wrote. Sure enough their are aomng the ones that ban Masonry. Again it seems that you conflate two disjoint sets then question upon your mistake conflation.

    I believe Sheldon was in turn quoting "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086856/?ref_=nv_sr_1

    I lived for many years in the neighborhood depicted on Big Bang Theory. I even get the inside jokes about local stores. I started college at Caltech. Those guys are so much like so many of my friends in the dorms its hysterical to me. I hardly get why folks who went to college elsewhere like the show, but the fact that the Penny character is popular says that I'm missing plenty of other humor

    Another favorite movie of mine is "Real Genius" and for the same reason. The guy who lived in the tunnels is based on a specific person who was assigned as my mentor for the first two weeks in the dorms. Unlike Big Bang, the characters in Real Genius were age appropriate.
     
  7. jjjjjggggg

    jjjjjggggg Premium Member

    252
    155
    63
    Point me to the thread... would love to read it.l
     
  8. brother josh

    brother josh Registered User

    305
    29
    28
    Wait one second I thought there was a TRex on the ark just sayin lol


    Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
     
  9. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,378
    133
    I presented a discourse on the topic at a Table Lodge for Lombard 1098 GLofIL several years ago. I don't recall posting it here. Maybe I'll check to see if I have a digital copy to paste as a new thread based on your request.

    By separate thread I meant the discussion of whether believing in the existence of deity is rational would be a topic for a different thread not this one. It would go on the philosophy sub-forum I think. In this thread all that I think is needed is contradicting a statement that believing in the existence of deity is always irrational. The scientific problem is lack of instrumental detection, but there is far more to rationality than current scientific instrumentation.
     
  10. jjjjjggggg

    jjjjjggggg Premium Member

    252
    155
    63
    Looking back I worded that wrong. My intent was not to say a god belief is necessarily irrational from a personal point of view, but that atheists default to a god belief as irrational.

    This use to be a topic I kept up with, as I have read both camps' best writers. Though I do believe in deity, it seemed the atheists came out ahead, theists had seemed to get lazy... but definitely a topic for another thread.

    And I would love to read your work... I'm kind of nerdy when it comes to this subject and love reading new angles on the debate.


    Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
     
  11. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,378
    133
    Standard difference between agnostic and atheist or "soft atheist" and "hard atheist" whichever term you prefer. There are many weaknesses to the hard approach, calling belief in the divine irrational is only one of those weaknesses.
     
  12. CuAllaidh

    CuAllaidh Registered User

    85
    6
    8
    So you have a problem.... not with Darwin's theory, or the scientific meaning of theory... but that you think Darwin was just trying to prove god doesn't exist and he was doing this because he was a communist? Is that what this boils down to? You do realize that Darwin himself maintained that "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist" and that he maintained that he was not an atheist but rather an agnostic. Linking Darwinism to Communism is just ridiculous, one has nothing to do with the other.
     
  13. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    As an Orthodox Christian, I'm no atheist, but I do at times think that belief in God is and must be irrational.

    I have no problem with this. "Rational" merely means "fits into our collective model of how things are supposed to work". It doesn't mean "true". It doesn't mean "correct". It doesn't even mean "fully thought out". It just means "fits into what most people agree is 'rational'". Are we not called to be "fools for Christ"? Let me boast, then, of my foolishness. I am a scientist who gets quite irritable at misrepresentation of science and dismissing theories on the grounds they are called "theories". I simultaneously am quite convinced that God exists. He cares about little piece of nothing me (and you, and the guy who won't believe in Him). That He came down (the Divine Logos, the Son) from a state so transcendent that we can only metaphorize it as a sort of "up place" and took on humanity while remaining fully Divine. etc. How irrational is that? How could one be more irrational to than to be all that I am. I glory in this irrationality. I glory in being such a fool.
     
  14. BroBook

    BroBook Premium Member

    586
    235
    63
    Good stuff!!!


    Bro Book
     
  15. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,052
    2,028
    133
  16. brother josh

    brother josh Registered User

    305
    29
    28
    I believe we as a whole man and earth combined are governed by divine providence and that Gods face is seen threw natures laws


    Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
     
  17. Frater Cliff Porter

    Frater Cliff Porter Premium Member

    391
    30
    0
    I believe in God (just not the anthropomorphic white dude with a beard who creates things in 7 days as a literal story), and I believe science has uncovered strong evidence of natural selection and evolution. I have no reason to believe the two don't leave in harmony. I recommend Gould's "Rocks of Ages" as a read you might all enjoy.
     
  18. jwhoff

    jwhoff Premium Member

    2,591
    142
    83
    I must agree Brother Porter. Even as a student in high school and college, I just never got the argument of science verses creation. To me they both followed the natural order of things set in place by the maker. And, through the years, I have discussed this subject with professors and religious leaders such as Jesuit Priests, Jewish Rabbis and Protestant Pastors. Not one of which was willing to discount either science or creation. Most felt their arguments to be in harmony as you say.

    Yes, I am aware of those from religion and science who do discredit the other. But these are not the kind of people who are drawn to converse with me. Nor I with them.

    And, yes, literal interpretations of just about anything in life leads to dogmatic confrontations.

    Finely, thank you very much for the tip on Gould's "Rock of Ages." I will go straight to Amazon to find a copy.

    May the GAOTU bless and keep you Brother. Keep up the good work! Masons everywhere owe you a great debt for the light you continue to bring to this great fraternity. :thumbup1:
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2014
  19. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,378
    133
    So far I have only found a version that I edited to make heavily sectarian. Not appropriate in a Masonic context. No luck so far finding the non-sectarian version I presented at a Table Lodge.

    The outline goes like this -

    Philosophy starts with direct personal observation and builds from there. The current form of modern science depends on instrumental detection, though that's not necessary to conduct science in all cases. Thus philosophy deals with a wider range of the rational than does science and science deals with a wider range of phenomena than the instrumentalists normally discuss.

    Subjective experiences are internal ones that are not shared from individual to individual. Objective experiences are external ones that are agreed upon between individuals. On the surface all direct personal observation of deity appears to be subjective as there has never been any instrumental detection. The issue of subjective versus objective is floating point not digital, though. Objective experiences do fall into classes that have been organized into many different workable systems.

    Across the ages a minority of humanity has reported direct personal observation of deity. No instrument has ever detected deity. This is the core issue at the heart of the discussion of existence of deity - How can it be rational to have an experience that are subjective not objective?

    List various historical transitions from subjective to objective has knowledge has advanced. Include some that everyone could see but no one could understand until the advent of science (fire is visible but understanding plasma is very recent). Include some that have a different type of existence than the physical (mathematics). Touch on the sweep of psychology as it progressed across modern history. Discuss the idea that subjective experiences do form groups (patterns of experiences in church or by saints or the pattern of legends in various religions).

    Ask the closing question about direct personal observation - Are you willing to call in error or insane all of those billions across the millennia who have reported direct personal observation of deity? I am not willing to make that claim. That is the claim of numerous atheists.

    Conclude with a willingness to be in error. What if I'm wrong that deity exists? The upside to belief is large while the downside to disbelief is small on a personal scale. Acknowledge that the history of civilizations has a much larger downside. If I'm wrong I'm in good company.

    Please note that this line of argument that belief in the existence of deity has little or nothing to do with which religion a believer ends up in. It doesn't address that topic at all. Those who have direct personal observation of deity often use those experiences to chose but that's beyond the scope of this line of argument. It also says nothing about evolution. Belief or disbelief in evolution is not correlated with belief or disbelief in the existence of deity - If you disbelieve in evolution because or your religion that's a completely different issue than believing in the existence of deity.
     
  20. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    No that a everyone should know that theory is not fact it has fact in it but it is not end all be all fact. It is a way for someone to explain the data that is missing and the parts that are not fact. Anyone that seaks to distory religion so the governemt becomes a replacement for it is comunistic. Governments that strive to elemanate religion are comunistic! Some day you need to read the comunist manafesto and see what Marx said about the enviroment. I will not quote it because you won't beleive it.
     

Share My Freemasonry