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. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    The germ theory of disease. Just a theory, therefore, bacteria NEVER cause disease.
    The theory of gravity. Just a theory, therefore, gravity doesn't exist.

    The plain truth is that someone who makes a big deal over whether or not a scientific model is called a "theory" or not simply is showing off complete lack of understanding of how the term "theory" is used as a professional term of art--REGARDLESS of how popular language has deviated from that use.
     
  2. jjjjjggggg

    jjjjjggggg Premium Member

    252
    155
    63
    Thank you dfreybur... I get the gist of what you explained, and one of the more reasonable arguments I've read.

    I'm no atheist, obviously, but the arguments from the theistic side that I've read (and I've read a ton of books on both sides) have had such a serious amount of logical errors that I was quite embarrassed.

    Even a person I highly respect, who is also a mason, had wrote a recent book on the argument for god... but I didn't have the heart to tell him his arguments weren't well researched or convincing. I've seen better articles written on Wikipedia.

    But thank you, so far the best I've seen yet.


    Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
     
  3. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    One more time what ever you say is right I don't understand or know anything. The theory of gravity of Nuton has been updated 2 twice to add more information by Einestin and Hawkins so that is why it is just a theory and not a conclution. It is more information. That is why some of the Darwinist are stoping some of the new archology from South America where there are branches without the tree. This may not have anything in it but it also may be good info. There are serveal colleges on the east cost that will not except any research that doesn't suport Darwin only. It may also just be because of Pangea but we will not know that if research is not alowed and Archiologist and not discreted just because they don't want to detract or add to Darwin.
     
  4. CuAllaidh

    CuAllaidh Registered User

    85
    6
    8
    I have read Communist Manafesto many times, nothing you could quote from it would shock me. I can't recall any discussion about any governments trying to eliminate religion, not sure why you are bringing that up, very irrelevant to this discussion.



    Newton's theory of gravity has been expanded upon, that doesn't make his theory's wrong. Darwinists are trying to stop some archaeology... sorry but cite a reference on that one, I don't buy it.
     
  5. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,394
    133
    I noticed the errors of logic in both the theist and atheist arguments so I decided to rethink and reframe the issue. To me the discussion of the existence of deity isn't related to other topics involved so I addressed it separately - It all starts with direct personal observation and that's something that does happen. You'll notice my argument does not address the nature of deity as that's not something that sees agreement.

    Arguments about creation seem weak to me. Having a creator implies a creator of creators and so on back in an infinite sequence. This problem tends to be addressed with a "first principle" or "first creator" but there is no such beginning to any infinite sequence. In fact the best argument for creation comes from the evidence of science having to do with the Big Bang and that evidence is *extremely* new only being known since the 1920s (Hubble returned to astronomy after serving in WWI). Thing is, we don't need creation to have deity. Hindu has no creation and it has deity/deities. Buddhism has neither depending on which of their sacred writings you chose among.

    Arguments about order in nature also seem weak to me. If a being dictates order that suggests chaos predates order but it also suggests that being emerged spontaneously from chaos. This does not resemble the divine as usually conceived. In the end the issue of order has the same problems as the issue of creation, and the same type of physical evidence. Science observes all sorts of self organizing systems in the universe and science explains many of them. As with the Big Bang science still has gaps and uncertainties and comes with no guarantees those gaps will ever be filled. Evolution is one example of self organizing systems.

    Bro Bryan asserted that believing in the existence of deity should be an irrational act, an act of faith. I suggest an alternative to that stance -

    It is rational to believe in the existence of deity because direct personal observation happens. It is rational to believe the universe came into existence because the astronomical evidence suggests that. It is rational to accept that there is order in the universe because self organizing systems as widely observed.

    Merging these stances, that's where the faith comes in. Where brother Bryan calls this irrational I suggest it is a-rational. An irrational stance goes against reason. Merging these stances does not go against reason. An a-rational stance is independent of reason. Merging these stances is, to me and at this point, independent of reason.
     
  6. CuAllaidh

    CuAllaidh Registered User

    85
    6
    8
    Well said brother :D
     
  7. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    NO BIOLOGIST USES DARWIN'S THEORY AS HE PRESENTED IT. NONE. IT HAS BEEN UPDATED SEVERAL TIMES SINCE IT WAS FIRST PUBLISHED. STOP PONTIFICATING ON BIOLOGY UNTIL YOU KNOW SOMETHING AT ALL ABOUT SCIENCE. Also, archaeologists do not do biological research. An archaeologist presuming to pontificate on biology is as ridiculous as a biologist presuming to pontificate on high-energy particle physics. Cite this alleged "research" that you claim is being "blocked". Show me the details. Or are you just blindly passing along rumors?
     
  8. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    I have asserted nothing of the sort. Quote, specifically, wherein I stated that my own approach is how things "should" be done.
     
  9. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. thix is one of may lines in the menavesto.
     
  10. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    Now, what does that mean? It's not at all shocking. Marx didn't come out and say "Religious people are stupid.", for example. He said that religion is the "heart of the heartless world". His use of "opium" is better understood when one realizes that the amazing variety of painkillers, both over-the-counter and prescription, we have today, did not exist at that time. He might as well have written "It is the Advil of the people." and had the same meaning. Opium was often taken at that time in order to soothe unhealable pain.
     
  11. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    I was answering the question the the manifesto did talk about religion and he thought that religion should not point to God but government. A religion of government and people thinking nothing but government could be there savourer in life. This is why progresives like darwin had to have theroies that pushed God out of the thought of man.
     
  12. jjjjjggggg

    jjjjjggggg Premium Member

    252
    155
    63
    Wow... no offense brother but this is utter nonsense! Darwin didn't propose his theories to satisfy Marx... I seriously doubt Darwin even read his manifesto. Your knowledge may be as "exstensive" as you claim but your reasoning is flawed!


    Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2014
  13. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    You obviously know nothing at all about Darwin as a human being. He was not a "progressive". He was an English naturalist who had little to no interest at all in politics. He had no care one way or the other of "pushing" or not "pushing" God anywhere. If anything, he was a typical muddled, middle-of-the-road Anglican. He did not have the agenda touted by so many paranoid delusionals. Darwin and Marx did not sit together over tea and conspire to bring about the death of humanity. Marx did not at any time declare that religion should point to government. He simply wished to do away with it because it was his conclusion that religion had become nothing but an arm and enabler of government. It was a way for governments to manipulate and distract people, thus to control them. That was Marx's point. Marx's point was that government officials would use or co-opt religion to "wave the cross around" in order to pretend to great morality, thus authorizing themselves to do everyone else's thinking for them.

    Marx's solution was to conclude that, since religion could be abused in such a fashion, it had to be done away with and since it could be so abused, it meant there could be no God, since a real God would protect religion, or at least the correct one. Marx was in error on these two points (among many others), but anyone who claims that Marx intended to use religion to worship the state is either lying or been badly lied to. If anything, Marx wanted to eliminate religion and ceremony altogether as being too dangerous for the people--that would include government-worship ceremonies. What was done with his (flawed) analysis is one reason that he eventually stated, "If this is Marxism, I am not a Marxist".

    Funny thing--the last time I saw anything that looked A GREAT DEAL like worship of government, it was at a Baptist church, on a Sunday that was near the 4th of July.
     
  14. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    To me it is obvious you don't look at all the data and when a duck looks acts and quacks like a duck you don't believe it is one. Look at those that Darwin hung around and suported his research in later years. Also when thinking about Marx he did want to elimenate religion but it was because alot of man will always beleive in something biger then them self's and he thought that should be government. Religin doesn't have to have worship or ceremonies it is only a common beleif in something. Dogma is where the rituals, ceremonies and worship come in.

    It is odd how you know what (I) know and don't know more than (I)......I just use all data...empirical data and writen data...

    If you notice everytime I answer I tell you something to look at because you have to figure it out yourself or you will never beleive/know. .......... And as a quote form a musical "stand back non-believers or the rain will never fall"
     
  15. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    That's what some wiccans I knew would pretty much claim when their "magic" always failed to do anything. Since I didn't believe in their "goddess", I was "blocking" it. I concluded that to mean that I was more powerful than their "goddess".

    You prefer to sit in darkness on something as simple as the use of the word "theory" in the sciences, even when it is explained to you. You return to the same tired old lie of "It's just a theory." When there is that much love of darkness...
     
  16. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    I prefer to sit in the light which is knowaloge and openess to look at data and make my own decisions based on that. Time effects my learning about and making changes in my opinion of Darwins theory of eveloution, I am not stuck at the point when he cameup with his theory. I am learning and growing from that point. No theory is infollowable. So yep "It's just a theory" that will change and may even be proven 50% right. I say that because I will not ever stop learning and stop testing my ideas about theorys of all type. It is still just a theory or you would have to say the theory of ancient aliens is right also. The AA theory may or not be right but I am willing to look at more data all the time and learn from it. Its a theory!! It has had peir revew. Do you beleive in it? I am always willing to look at new data on Darwins theory but with what I know now it has many holes in it.

    I don't understand why everyone can not just state there opinion explan how they came to that opinion without being personaly attacked in such a way I would have to say oh your right I don't know anything. I have only talked about light and learning.

    One more thing "hello darkness my old freind"
     
  17. JohnnyFlotsam

    JohnnyFlotsam Premium Member

    485
    62
    28
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. No one is entitled to his own facts. You insist on ignoring every patient explanation of what a scientific theory is, and is not. Your opinion does not change the facts about science and the way it works.
     
  18. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    The problem is that to many people think a scientific theory is all fact. It may or not be. Others review the data used for the theory and see if it fits. If it fits and is complete we all beleive in the theory. If it has holes missing in the data some beleive it is right and some don't. Like I have said before it is just a theory. The is not fact the data used to comeup with the theory is the fact and anyone can come up with a theory that is deferent and uses the same data/facts.
     
  19. Aeelorty

    Aeelorty Registered User

    98
    4
    8
    That right there is the real issue. Theories and explanations differ in accuracy. Secondly not everyone is qualified to interpret the data and the theories they purpose are of lower quality. Specifically the Ancient Aliens theory is the prime example of using poor data and wild speculation. What "holes" have you found in Evolutionary theory?
     
  20. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,394
    133
    Yet none of those have been in this discussion. You're using points that don't apply in the context of this discussion and have introduced points not relevant to the discussion. That's two different types of logical fallacy - Non sequitor and canard.

    I get that the topic is one of belief and anyone can believe anything as they wish. Attempts to apply logical fallacies as support aren't needed for belief and shouldn't work among students of the liberal arts and sciences.
     

Share My Freemasonry