Author Topic: "Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."  (Read 6366 times)

Offline Lydia Purpuraria

  • Mary Garden
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2665
  • Thanked: 756 times
Re: "Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2014, 01:25:33 PM »
We are talking about a man who, contrary to all empirical evidence, believes that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old. That alone destroys any real scientific credibility that this man may have ever held. That anyone keeps holding him up as a good example is further evidence of the bankruptcy of scientific comprehension that seems to be prevalent amongst the trad community.

I agree, the anti-science bias within Traddom is very irritating.

Did you listen to what the man had to say? How is he wrong?  How is he "anti-science"?
 

Offline GloriaPatri

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2488
  • Thanked: 509 times
  • Religion: Platonic Realist
Re: "Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2014, 01:39:48 PM »
We are talking about a man who, contrary to all empirical evidence, believes that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old. That alone destroys any real scientific credibility that this man may have ever held. That anyone keeps holding him up as a good example is further evidence of the bankruptcy of scientific comprehension that seems to be prevalent amongst the trad community.

I agree, the anti-science bias within Traddom is very irritating.

Did you listen to what the man had to say? How is he wrong?  How is he "anti-science"?

First off, the man's specialty is in genetics, not evolutionary biology. Thus he is not an "authority" on the topic anymore than I am on Renaissance poetry. Furthermore, the evidence and consensus of the scientific community is overwhelmingly against him. His views would be rightly classified as pseudoscience.

Furthermore, read the first one-star review of his book on Genetic Entropy here: http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/product-reviews/1599190028/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one/178-0482034-6125856?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0

It gives an excellent overview as to everything wrong with the good doctors opinions.
 

Offline Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3901
  • Thanked: 961 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: "Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2014, 01:56:46 PM »
Its not all I need to know if I want them to believe in the Faith, since they think Holy Mother Church's rejection of natural selection means she is wrong.

Why don't you have them prove their position for you before you counter. Should be interesting.
" There exists now an enormous religious ignorance. In the times since the Council it is evident we have failed to pass on the content of the Faith.”

(Pope Benedict XVI speaking in October 2002.)
 

Offline Lydia Purpuraria

  • Mary Garden
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2665
  • Thanked: 756 times
Re: "Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2014, 02:01:26 PM »
We are talking about a man who, contrary to all empirical evidence, believes that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old. That alone destroys any real scientific credibility that this man may have ever held. That anyone keeps holding him up as a good example is further evidence of the bankruptcy of scientific comprehension that seems to be prevalent amongst the trad community.

I agree, the anti-science bias within Traddom is very irritating.

Did you listen to what the man had to say? How is he wrong?  How is he "anti-science"?

First off, the man's specialty is in genetics, not evolutionary biology. Thus he is not an "authority" on the topic anymore than I am on Renaissance poetry.

Are you seriously saying that genetics has nothing (or, at least has very little) to do with evolution? Even I know that that is a strange presumption (and nowhere near being analogous to Renaissance poetry). lol

Furthermore, the evidence and consensus of the scientific community is overwhelmingly against him. His views would be rightly classified as pseudoscience.

I think we could classify many things considered today as the majority opinion of the scientific community as 'pseudoscience' - so that alone does not convince me to not at least listen to what he has to say.


Furthermore, read the first one-star review of his book on Genetic Entropy here: http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/product-reviews/1599190028/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one/178-0482034-6125856?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0

It gives an excellent overview as to everything wrong with the good doctors opinions.

I'll give it a read when I get a chance.

BTW, I'd still love to hear your answers to the questions I asked you in the other post.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2014, 02:07:29 PM by Lydia Purpuraria »
 

Offline GloriaPatri

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2488
  • Thanked: 509 times
  • Religion: Platonic Realist
Re: "Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2014, 03:24:14 PM »
Genetics may play a part in evolutionary biology, but knowledge in genetics does not equate with a knowledge of evolutionary biology. Furthermore, he specializes in genetics as it relates to horticulture and the splicing of plant genes together. That has little bearing on evolutionary biology. Furthermore, the consensus (not "opinions," as you put it) of the scientific community hardly count as pseudoscience. The theories they propose are well-substantiated with empirical evidence. If you think that they're pseudoscientific, that is because you do not understand the theories or the evidence supporting them. It speaks more of yourself than it does the veracity of the theories.

Furthermore, I already told you how he is anti-science. He blindly refuses to accept the evidence for an old universe and for evolutionary biology. He operates in a manner that is contrary to the scientific method: He assumes his personal conclusions to be true, and then searches for evidence to substantiate them, while rejecting or misinterpreting the evidence that counters his preconceived conclusions. It's a classic case of the confirmation bias. It is likewise a form of circular reasoning, as he already assumes his conclusion to be true: i.e. that evolution is false.
 

Offline Lydia Purpuraria

  • Mary Garden
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2665
  • Thanked: 756 times
Re: "Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2014, 04:31:09 PM »
Genetics may play a part in evolutionary biology, but knowledge in genetics does not equate with a knowledge of evolutionary biology.

It probably has about as much a role as physics, and therefore could be comparable to the knowledge of physicists of evolutionary biology.

Furthermore, he specializes in genetics as it relates to horticulture and the splicing of plant genes together. That has little bearing on evolutionary biology.

If that makes you feel better with your decision to ignore him, so be it.

Furthermore, the consensus (not "opinions," as you put it) of the scientific community hardly count as pseudoscience.

I said, "I think we could classify many things considered today as the majority opinion of the scientific community as 'pseudoscience' - so that alone does not convince me to not at least listen to what he has to say."
 
con•sen•sus (kənˈsɛn səs)

n., pl. -sus•es.
1. collective judgment or belief; solidarity of opinion:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consensus

but, really this particular aspect is a bit like splitting hairs, I don't think it is all that important except for the fact that you went on to say:

The theories they propose are well-substantiated with empirical evidence. If you think that they're pseudoscientific, that is because you do not understand the theories or the evidence supporting them. It speaks more of yourself than it does the veracity of the theories.

It is interesting that I didn't give particular examples of pseudoscience ( I was speaking generally), yet you were able to already judge that I am in error. Makes me wonder about how you come to your conclusions if you don't gather the proper evidence first.

Furthermore, I already told you how he is anti-science. He blindly refuses to accept the evidence for an old universe and for evolutionary biology. He operates in a manner that is contrary to the scientific method: He assumes his personal conclusions to be true, and then searches for evidence to substantiate them, while rejecting or misinterpreting the evidence that counters his preconceived conclusions. It's a classic case of the confirmation bias. It is likewise a form of circular reasoning, as he already assumes his conclusion to be true: i.e. that evolution is false.

This could actually be applied to you... you apparently refuse to accept any evidence for a young earth and non-evolutionary biology. You operate in a manner contrary to the scientific method. You assume personal conclusions to be true, and then search for evidence to substantiate them, while rejecting or misinterpreting the evidence that counters your preconceived conclusions. It's a classic case of confirmation bias. It is likewise a form of circular reasoning, as you already assume your conclusion to be true: i.e. that evolution is true.

I am still wanting to know the ways in which you reconcile your beliefs with Scripture and Tradition. Or do you answer to the scientific community alone?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2014, 04:51:46 PM by Lydia Purpuraria »
 

Offline BigMelvin

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 608
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • Gary Gou-Lagrange
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: "Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2014, 04:38:13 PM »
Its not all I need to know if I want them to believe in the Faith, since they think Holy Mother Church's rejection of natural selection means she is wrong.

Why don't you have them prove their position for you before you counter. Should be interesting.

Well of course.
I saw the sun go down, on dreams of a utopian evermore...

Modernism controls its victims in the name of obedience, thanks to the suspicion of pride which is cast on any criticism of their reforms, in the name of respect for the Pope, in the name of missionary zeal, of charity, and of unity.”
 – Fr. Roger Calmel OP, Letter of 8th August, 1973

"In reference to the created intellect, however, (and specifically to the human) things may be said to be false when by their appearances they invite misconception of their true nature"
H.D. Gardeil, O.P., Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 4: Metaphysics, 138.
 

Offline BigMelvin

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 608
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • Gary Gou-Lagrange
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: "Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2014, 04:40:14 PM »

This may be a good place to start with a secular scientist saying evolution is "scientifically impossible": http://www.faithfulanswers.com/gene-gun-inventor-says-evolution-scientifically-impossible/

Thanks for that link.

Yes thanks for the sources Lydia Purpararia!
I saw the sun go down, on dreams of a utopian evermore...

Modernism controls its victims in the name of obedience, thanks to the suspicion of pride which is cast on any criticism of their reforms, in the name of respect for the Pope, in the name of missionary zeal, of charity, and of unity.”
 – Fr. Roger Calmel OP, Letter of 8th August, 1973

"In reference to the created intellect, however, (and specifically to the human) things may be said to be false when by their appearances they invite misconception of their true nature"
H.D. Gardeil, O.P., Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 4: Metaphysics, 138.
 

Offline GloriaPatri

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2488
  • Thanked: 509 times
  • Religion: Platonic Realist
Re: "Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2014, 05:01:43 PM »
Genetics may play a part in evolutionary biology, but knowledge in genetics does not equate with a knowledge of evolutionary biology.

It probably has about as much a role as physics, and therefore could be comparable to the knowledge of physicists of evolutionary biology.

Furthermore, he specializes in genetics as it relates to horticulture and the splicing of plant genes together. That has little bearing on evolutionary biology.

If that makes you feel better with your decision to ignore him, so be it.

Furthermore, the consensus (not "opinions," as you put it) of the scientific community hardly count as pseudoscience.

I said, "I think we could classify many things considered today as the majority opinion of the scientific community as 'pseudoscience' - so that alone does not convince me to not at least listen to what he has to say."
 
con•sen•sus (kənˈsɛn səs)

n., pl. -sus•es.
1. collective judgment or belief; solidarity of opinion:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consensus

but, really this particular aspect is a bit like splitting hairs, I don't think it is all that important except for the fact that you went on to say:

The theories they propose are well-substantiated with empirical evidence. If you think that they're pseudoscientific, that is because you do not understand the theories or the evidence supporting them. It speaks more of yourself than it does the veracity of the theories.

It is interesting that I didn't give particular examples of pseudoscience ( I was speaking generally), yet you were able to already judge that I am in error. Makes me wonder about how you come to your conclusions if you don't gather the proper evidence first.

Furthermore, I already told you how he is anti-science. He blindly refuses to accept the evidence for an old universe and for evolutionary biology. He operates in a manner that is contrary to the scientific method: He assumes his personal conclusions to be true, and then searches for evidence to substantiate them, while rejecting or misinterpreting the evidence that counters his preconceived conclusions. It's a classic case of the confirmation bias. It is likewise a form of circular reasoning, as he already assumes his conclusion to be true: i.e. that evolution is false.

This could actually be applied to you... you apparently refuse to accept any evidence for a young earth and non-evolutionary biology. You operate in a manner contrary to the scientific method. You assume personal conclusions to be true, and then search for evidence to substantiate them, while rejecting or misinterpreting the evidence that counters your preconceived conclusions. It's a classic case of confirmation bias. It is likewise a form of circular reasoning, as you already assume your conclusion to be true: i.e. that evolution is true.

I am still wanting to know the ways in which you reconcile your beliefs with Scripture and Tradition. Or do you answer to the scientific community alone?

I did not presume there to be an old earth or evolutionary biology to be true when I began looking at the collective evidence. The experimentation done to determine the age of the Earth and the veracity of evolution has been done countless times over. If was the whole host of experiments and empirical evidence that convinced me that the Earth was old and that the organisms present on this Earth have evolved for billions of years. You will find, however, that young-earth (and old-earth) creationists have no evidence for their hypotheses. At best they can twist evidence in an attempt to prove the conclusions they want you to see. At worst they blindly ignore the evidence all together.
 

Offline james03

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8190
  • Thanked: 2705 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: "Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."
« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2014, 12:55:08 AM »
1.  There is evidence of old earth.  After the "consensus science" of global warming, I mean climate change, I am not convinced.  Still, to be honest, if I had to come down on one side, I'd pick old earth.

2. Evolutionary biology got blown out of the water in recent years.  Basically you have to take all the work done on it to date and throw it in the garbage.  Note, this doesn't prove creationism, however the work done on evolutionary biology is now worthless:
a.  The paradigm of evolutionary biology, "biochemistry", is completely wrong.  We now know that the true paradigm is cellular nanotechnology.
b.  The genome is extremely complex.
c.  There are interesting questions about "knowledge" contained in the code.

3.  Without a doubt, life arising from "natural" causes is proven false.  There is a deadlock problem with proteins and DNA.  Again, this doesn't disprove evolution, i.e. God could have started with a basic DNA/protein life form, then let evolution take over, however the "consensus" was that life naturally arose due to "biochemisty".  This is false.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."
 

Offline james03

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8190
  • Thanked: 2705 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: "Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."
« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2014, 12:57:51 AM »
Quote
Furthermore, the consensus (not "opinions," as you put it) of the scientific community hardly count as pseudoscience. The theories they propose are well-substantiated with empirical evidence.

Interesting.  Give me a theory how the first cell division took place and examples of well-substantiated empirical evidence that this theory is correct.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."
 

Offline BigMelvin

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 608
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • Gary Gou-Lagrange
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: "Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."
« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2014, 06:09:54 AM »
We are talking about a man who, contrary to all empirical evidence, believes that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old. That alone destroys any real scientific credibility that this man may have ever held. That anyone keeps holding him up as a good example is further evidence of the bankruptcy of scientific comprehension that seems to be prevalent amongst the trad community.

I agree, the anti-science bias within Traddom is very irritating.

Did you listen to what the man had to say? How is he wrong?  How is he "anti-science"?

First off, the man's specialty is in genetics, not evolutionary biology. Thus he is not an "authority" on the topic anymore than I am on Renaissance poetry. Furthermore, the evidence and consensus of the scientific community is overwhelmingly against him. His views would be rightly classified as pseudoscience.

Furthermore, read the first one-star review of his book on Genetic Entropy here: http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/product-reviews/1599190028/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one/178-0482034-6125856?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0

It gives an excellent overview as to everything wrong with the good doctors opinions.

GloriaPatri could you please give me a brief synopsis of your position concerning evolutionary biology?
Thank you
I saw the sun go down, on dreams of a utopian evermore...

Modernism controls its victims in the name of obedience, thanks to the suspicion of pride which is cast on any criticism of their reforms, in the name of respect for the Pope, in the name of missionary zeal, of charity, and of unity.”
 – Fr. Roger Calmel OP, Letter of 8th August, 1973

"In reference to the created intellect, however, (and specifically to the human) things may be said to be false when by their appearances they invite misconception of their true nature"
H.D. Gardeil, O.P., Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 4: Metaphysics, 138.
 

Offline BigMelvin

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 608
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • Gary Gou-Lagrange
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: "Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."
« Reply #27 on: August 20, 2014, 06:18:28 AM »


2. Evolutionary biology got blown out of the water in recent years.  Basically you have to take all the work done on it to date and throw it in the garbage.  Note, this doesn't prove creationism, however the work done on evolutionary biology is now worthless:
a.  The paradigm of evolutionary biology, "biochemistry", is completely wrong.  We now know that the true paradigm is cellular nanotechnology.
b.  The genome is extremely complex.
c.  There are interesting questions about "knowledge" contained in the code.


Thanks James03, could you provide some sources or links for this sort of stuff when you have a moment?
I saw the sun go down, on dreams of a utopian evermore...

Modernism controls its victims in the name of obedience, thanks to the suspicion of pride which is cast on any criticism of their reforms, in the name of respect for the Pope, in the name of missionary zeal, of charity, and of unity.”
 – Fr. Roger Calmel OP, Letter of 8th August, 1973

"In reference to the created intellect, however, (and specifically to the human) things may be said to be false when by their appearances they invite misconception of their true nature"
H.D. Gardeil, O.P., Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 4: Metaphysics, 138.
 

Offline james03

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8190
  • Thanked: 2705 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: "Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."
« Reply #28 on: August 20, 2014, 06:43:08 PM »

Start at 7 minutes.  Note, this is BASIC life, cell division.  This process had to be in place to have reproduction.

Item 1 is discussed in the video on this thread.

Item 3 I read about, but don't remember where.  It is a philosophical question.  Where did the knowledge come from embedded in the code?
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."
 

Offline BigMelvin

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 608
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • Gary Gou-Lagrange
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: "Darwinism is a theory that lost any scientific credibility..."
« Reply #29 on: August 21, 2014, 05:52:51 AM »

Start at 7 minutes.  Note, this is BASIC life, cell division.  This process had to be in place to have reproduction.

Item 1 is discussed in the video on this thread.

Item 3 I read about, but don't remember where.  It is a philosophical question.  Where did the knowledge come from embedded in the code?

Thanks a lot, I will watch. Concerning Item 3, what sort of knowledge is embedded in the code? How would this relate to the tabula rasa in the philosophical psychology of St Thomas?Thanks
I saw the sun go down, on dreams of a utopian evermore...

Modernism controls its victims in the name of obedience, thanks to the suspicion of pride which is cast on any criticism of their reforms, in the name of respect for the Pope, in the name of missionary zeal, of charity, and of unity.”
 – Fr. Roger Calmel OP, Letter of 8th August, 1973

"In reference to the created intellect, however, (and specifically to the human) things may be said to be false when by their appearances they invite misconception of their true nature"
H.D. Gardeil, O.P., Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 4: Metaphysics, 138.