YEC (was Heaven will be boring)

[Enoch2021]

That which cannot be seen (detected) is not evidence of anything.

Factually Incorrect. Can you "SEE" Software/Information? If you need me to POST IT (You already seen it ) let me know. Can you "SEE": TRUTH, Knowledge, Logic....do they exist?

Non-sequitur (fallacy). None of these things mentioned are evidence.

Thus, faith is belief without evidence. Hope is not evidence. Belief is not evidence.

Biblical Faith is the exact opposite. You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith.

That would be a fallacy of false equivalence, not equivocation.

That would be a fallacy of false equivalence, not equivocation.

Say What? It's not even close...."You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith."

Equivocation (Fallacy)--- The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambigu ... ivocation/

False Equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency:

The following statements are examples of false equivalence:

"They're both soft, cuddly pets. There's no difference between a cat and a dog."
"We're all born naked. We're all no different from each other."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence


Which Fallacy is in play here?

Non-sequitur (fallacy). None of these things mentioned are evidence.

Au Contraire, I beg to differ....

INFORMATION is the "sine qua non" of Life. Ya see....

Information---the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

It's CREATED then Transmitted to a Receiver for the purposes of instruction/guiding for a specific purpose and intent.
Most critically, the "Convention" has to be PRE-ARRANGED between the Transmitter and Receiver for it to be UNDERSTOOD. Without UNDERSTANDING...There is NO INFORMATION, it's a Cacophony of NOISE.

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic CODE booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

DNA displays Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes....

Even though DNA is analogous to "Computer" Software (We're not Computers), there is "SOFTWARE" in other genre's besides computers. Allow me to explain....

See this......C A T ? This is a "CODE". For what? ......



The Letters C A T aren't spelled out on it's fur. C A T is the "CODE" name we gave it. The meaning is the agreed upon convention "SOFTWARE"; It's semiotic.

Paul Revere...what's the "CODE" ? One Light or Two Lights, right? What's the Software? It was the Agreed upon Convention between Paul and The Patriots. Who Created the Software/Message (The "1 if by Land and 2 if by Sea")....the Lights?

You're looking a "CODE" right now....it's called the English Language. The Software (Meaning) is the Preemptive Agreed upon Convention so we can Understand the Message, it's Semiotic. Without "Meaning" there is No Information/"CODE" it's utter noise.
CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, without Exception.

To hold a Materialist/Methodological Naturalist position you must conclude, when viewing DNA (The Genetic "CODE") and it's attributes, that stupid atoms/molecules not only Created the "CODE"----but then conducted a meeting between DNA and (not exhaustive): mRNA, IF's/EF's/RF's, both sub-units of the Ribosome, all the tRNA's and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's...which then "hammered out" the convention (Software) and processes (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) and any conflicts to make sure everybody was on the same page... so it and they could survive; because No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Of course, everyone attending "The Meeting" save for DNA/mRNA/tRNA, are in WHOLE or Part...."Functional Proteins"; which then Begs the Question...Where'd the FIRST "Functional" Proteins, which are CODED for on DNA and takes the Entire Process above to make in the first place....Come From???? Minor detail, eh?
Then they closed the meeting and went for cocktails. Then the Bar, they discussed HOW they were gonna handle WATER (75% of all Cells), especially the problematic BOND between the Amino Acid....that the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's just forged with tRNA and "PROOF READ", that has a half-life of .5 seconds...IN WATER (where this particular process is all taking place) and the RF......THAT, with one itty bitty H2O Molecule in the "A" Site within the Ribosome, CAUSES the Entire Complex to BREAK APART...and STOP "TRANSLATION"!! SEE above: No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Then, since there's no free lunch and since the DeltaG for Protein Synthesis is POSITIVE (for all you 2LOT fans out there), had to bring GTP and ATP into the mix (along with all the sub-process that MAKE THEM...."Coded" on DNA) because without the SPECIFIC ENERGY SOURCE/type/currency and Placement/Timing would be like watching the Space Shuttle Launch after they sprayed the outside with Diesel.

I'm just spit-balling here, but.....I think you may need a new "Just So" Story.

Oh btw....

"The Ribosome, together with it's accessories, is probably the most sophisticated MACHINE ever made. All of it's components are active and moving, and it is environmentally friendly, producing only GDP and phosphate". {Emphasis Mine}
Garrett, R., Mechanics of the ribosome, Nature 400(6747): 811-812, 1999

Oh and btw, See those IF's/EF's/RF's...they are "Functional Proteins". Where'd they come from if it takes the Entire Process above... to make them? Hmm, a little Chicken and Egg action...the "Space Shuttle building the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant" motif. And Yes, it gets better....
Let's say I remove one of the IF's (Initiation Factors) or an EF (Elongation Factors) from the milieu, what happens to DNA Translation...IN TOTO, eh? Yes, that's right.... it's a Football Bat/Pillow Hammer. Ya get ZERO Translation (No Functional Protein Synthesis)...guess what that means? The Entire Process is IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!!
And what did Charlie say...

Charles Darwin "Origin of Species": "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."

What about a Complex "Process" in place of that "Organ", Charlie? We have Plenty of Organs that scuttle his mind-numbing nonsense anyway. Get an A&P Glossary and start with "Abdomen" and end with "Zygote"...those and everything In-Between are his Huckleberry. But I digress,


Please tell us HOW on Earth does:

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

Please show the Physico-Chemical links....?

Ed Lewis PhD Genetics, Nobel Laureate ....

"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".

Ladies and Gentleman, ink/paper/and glue molecules don't author books or technical instruction manuals for building robots. Pentose sugars, nucleo-bases, and activated phosphates don't create algorithms for the construction/maintenance/repair of literally thousands of "protein-robots" in each Cell; and that's just the mere TIP of the Iceberg.

This Game is OVER!!

So formally, "Scientifically"; Have it, Best Wishes (Source: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 ) ...

"Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.

Testable hypotheses about FSC {Functional Sequence Complexity}:

What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:

Null hypothesis #1
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #2
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #3
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #4
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified."

In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software...?


Love, this is Non-Sequitur as Hydrogen is Non-Sequitur to Water.

regards

[Bust Nak]

This is the refutation? Can you be a "Tad" more specific?

If I must: I have a counter example to your premise that "CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, Without Exception." I thought it was pretty obvious?

And, this is what?....
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 326#702326

A refutation to some of your claims, which you have yet to address.

1. Why?

Because I see it as an attempt to paint the impression that we haven't dealt with it, so you can call foul with when we are dismissive of your subsequent repeats.

2. "Cut and Paste", eh? Can you share the rationale of What on Earth does "Cut and Paste" have to do with the Veracity of the Message?

I would say cut and paste have nothing to do with the veracity of the message.

Define Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)?

What's wrong with the typical definition along the lines of an argument where its conclusion does not follow from its premises?

What if a Professor wrote up a lesson plan, then wrote on the board: "Protein Secondary Structure is crucial for functionality and is conferred by Functional Sequence Complexity (Primary Structure) and Hydrogen Bonding".
Then later that evening, decided to email the class the exact same text...but didn't feel like writing it out again....so merely "Cut and Pasted" from the lesson plan to the email.

Then it would save him some work.

Is the message in the email now COMPROMISED..because it was Cut and Pasted??

No, of course not.

Yes, I seen them the first time. And did this Read that real slow a couple of times....because what you're saying is "Atoms" have Sentience and Intelligence!!! This sorta motif...

Incorrect. I am saying sentience and intelligence is not always required for code or software.

When viewing a Magnetic Board with the message: "Be back Later, Gone Fishing. The Instructions are on the table, have the Exponential Specifically Complex Space Shuttle built when I return. Have a nice day"; then concluding...
That the force between Magnets of the Letters and the Board is responsible for the Construction, Arrangement of those Letters, and the Message thereof?

Is this what you're attempting to sell here?

Nop. And I would suggest that an average person wouldn't have came away with that interpetation from what I wrote, and as such, charge you with attempting to strawman me.

Yes, and this is Ice Hockey...
[image of not ice hockey]

Still not interested in your appeal to ridicule fallacy.

Yes, He Said It. What is it that needs "defending"?

Asked and answered: The claim that "evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular RELIGION " a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality" is what needs defending.

1. Finish It? It is Finished.

Then how come there were no responds to my objections for the best part of a month? You are happy to let your argument stands as is, in spite of all our counter-arguments?

2. ahhh, The "Information" Post (Link) has nothing whatsoever to do with Professor Ruse's thoughts on anything; so, I'm a loss with your response here.

Well you were the one who linked it when I asked if you wanted to defned Ruse's piece. And now you want to say your link has nothing whatsoever to do with Rues's thoughts? Why are you wasting my time?

[Enoch2021]

This is the refutation? Can you be a "Tad" more specific?

If I must: I have a counter example to your premise that "CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, Without Exception." I thought it was pretty obvious?

And, this is what?....
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 326#702326

A refutation to some of your claims, which you have yet to address.

1. Why?

Because I see it as an attempt to paint the impression that we haven't dealt with it, so you can call foul with when we are dismissive of your subsequent repeats.

2. "Cut and Paste", eh? Can you share the rationale of What on Earth does "Cut and Paste" have to do with the Veracity of the Message?

I would say cut and paste have nothing to do with the veracity of the message.

Define Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)?

What's wrong with the typical definition along the lines of an argument where its conclusion does not follow from its premises?

What if a Professor wrote up a lesson plan, then wrote on the board: "Protein Secondary Structure is crucial for functionality and is conferred by Functional Sequence Complexity (Primary Structure) and Hydrogen Bonding".
Then later that evening, decided to email the class the exact same text...but didn't feel like writing it out again....so merely "Cut and Pasted" from the lesson plan to the email.

Then it would save him some work.

Is the message in the email now COMPROMISED..because it was Cut and Pasted??

No, of course not.

Yes, I seen them the first time. And did this Read that real slow a couple of times....because what you're saying is "Atoms" have Sentience and Intelligence!!! This sorta motif...

Incorrect. I am saying sentience and intelligence is not always required for code or software.

When viewing a Magnetic Board with the message: "Be back Later, Gone Fishing. The Instructions are on the table, have the Exponential Specifically Complex Space Shuttle built when I return. Have a nice day"; then concluding...
That the force between Magnets of the Letters and the Board is responsible for the Construction, Arrangement of those Letters, and the Message thereof?

Is this what you're attempting to sell here?

Nop. And I would suggest that an average person wouldn't have came away with that interpetation from what I wrote, and as such, charge you with attempting to strawman me.

Yes, and this is Ice Hockey...
[image of not ice hockey]

Still not interested in your appeal to ridicule fallacy.

Yes, He Said It. What is it that needs "defending"?

Asked and answered: The claim that "evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular RELIGION " a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality" is what needs defending.

1. Finish It? It is Finished.

Then how come there were no responds to my objections for the best part of a month? You are happy to let your argument stands as is, in spite of all our counter-arguments?

2. ahhh, The "Information" Post (Link) has nothing whatsoever to do with Professor Ruse's thoughts on anything; so, I'm a loss with your response here.

Well you were the one who linked it when I asked if you wanted to defned Ruse's piece. And now you want to say your link has nothing whatsoever to do with Rues's thoughts? Why are you wasting my time?

A refutation to some of your claims, which you have yet to address.

I addressed each BEFORE you posted it. Here's an example....

ENOCH 2021:
You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD).

Bust Nak: I just give you alternatives: any number of other intelligent agents, like aliens or other deities.

This was written just before your "Alleged" Refutation....

ENOCH2021: You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Nature (Unguided) the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

Read this "slowly" then read your response "slowly" and see if you can pick out the issue. If you still don't see it...I can't help you.

I have a counter example to your premise that "CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, Without Exception."

Go ahead....?

Frankly I would call your cut and paste in multiple thread as spam.

Why?

Because I see it as an attempt to paint the impression that we haven't dealt with it

There is no "Impression" you haven't dealt with it...."coherently".

I would say cut and paste have nothing to do with the veracity of the message.

Then why did you say it?...it's quite Irrelevant.

Incorrect. I am saying sentience and intelligence is not always required for code or software.

Go ahead.....?

Nop. And I would suggest that an average person wouldn't have came away with that interpetation from what I wrote, and as such, charge you with attempting to strawman me.

It's right on point. OR please explain the Mechanism of Stupid Atoms Creating "Information".....?

Asked and answered: The claim that "evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular RELIGION " a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality" is what needs defending.

So go ask him to defend..."it". Don't you have to have something attempting to "Offend" it to then have the inclination to "Defend" it.

Well you were the one who linked it when I asked if you wanted to defned Ruse's piece. And now you want to say your link has nothing whatsoever to do with Rues's thoughts?

Why on Earth would I "link" My Information Post to Ruse?

Sorry appears to be a mis-communication...

The Link posted was in response to.....Bust Nak: "Well, Ruse isn't here to defend his piece, you want to have a go"?

I treated it as separate from the Ruse issue. My bad.

regards

[Bust Nak]

I addressed each BEFORE you posted it. Here's an example....

ENOCH 2021:
You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD).

Bust Nak: I just give you alternatives: any number of other intelligent agents, like aliens or other deities.

This was written just before your "Alleged" Refutation....

ENOCH2021: You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Nature (Unguided) the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

Read this "slowly" then read your response "slowly" and see if you can pick out the issue. If you still don't see it...I can't help you.

That's the problem with you repeating the same conversation in multipile thread. You lose the flow of the convesation.

Recap of that conversation:
You: There are two opitions random chance (nature) and ID (God,) there are no third choice.
Me: Incorrect, nature is not just random chance and there are other alternatives other than God such as aliens.
You: There are thousands alternatives under ID, if you can rule nature (unguided) out that leaves ID.

That's a bait and switch with you using unguilded and random, God and ID interchangeably.

Go ahead....?

I already gave it to you: evolutionary algorithms.

There is no "Impression" you haven't dealt with it...."coherently".

That's for the readers to judge, and hence the charge of spamming when you repeat the same claims in multipile thread as if we didn't address it. If you acknowledge that we have actually "dealt with it" all but inchoherently, why are you just repeating your orginal post without debating our respond?

Then why did you say it?...it's quite Irrelevant.

The record will show I never said cut and paste had something to do with the veracity of the message. That was your strawman.

Go ahead.....?

What's wrong with the counter-example I gave already?

It's right on point. OR please explain the Mechanism of Stupid Atoms Creating "Information".....?

It's easy. Through an iterative process of trial and error.

So go ask him to defend..."it". Don't you have to have something attempting to "Offend" it to then have the inclination to "Defend" it.

I would if he is here, that's why I said "well, Ruse isn't here to defend his piece, you want to have a go?" And you said yes; but if you don't want to that's fine too.

[ytrewq]

Your reasoning is that the Judge was an unsuitable person to judge whether ID should be rejected as being a vaild science, as he was not a trained scientist in the relevant field himself, and was thus inept (your word) and unqualified regarding the subject matter.

That is an arguable case, though there is also something to be said for an impartial judge. The alternative that you are strongly advocating, is that the judgement should have been made by a representative selection of the best professional scientists of the field, who would be the best qualified re the subject matter, and without a shadow of a doubt, the overwhelming consensus of professional scientists reject ID, and reject that it is valid science. Maybe you are right, and the judge should instead have obtained a consensus from the best scientists in the field, who would in turn have comprehensively rejected ID. Fair enough. I won't argue with you on that.

You have not answered quite a number of my questions and postings, which is a shame because I find the topic interesting, and I would not be asking the questions unless I took the article that you are quoting from seriously. Your own gross extensions to the article I find less convincing though, and when I question you on the details off your considerably extended claims, I get no answers. I would be sincerely appreciative if you could 'have a go' at the questions I have asked. Perhaps I'll group the unanswered questions into a summary for you.

I am not fobbing off your own questions. I need to know exactly what you believe before I can respond, because your beliefs clearly go well beyond what is written in the article.

Yea sure. We're quite done. In fact, we were done after I posted "Information". As we all know, the rest is barely palpable background noise.

When you can falsify any of the Null's, gimme a ring.

regards

OK. So far, there are many question I have asked you that you have been unable to answer. We can come back to them.

As I understand from your other postings, you are a Young Earth Creationist, believing that all life, fully-evolved, appeared on Earth by Divine Intervention a few thousand years ago, is that right?

[Enoch2021]

That's for the readers to judge

You'll need to spot them an abacus and a serious GPS system so they can spot some semblance of your argument.

It's easy. Through an iterative process of trial and error.

Trial and Error denotes: "End Goal" Purpose, Reasoning, INTELLIGENCE! You're reduced to ascribing Sentience and Intelligence to Inanimate Objects.

When you have a coherent argument stop back.

regards

[Bust Nak]

You'll need to spot them an abacus and a serious GPS system so they can spot some semblance of your argument.

Way to insult the intelligence of our readers. They don't need anything other than their eyes to spot that you've left the majority of my post unchallenged. How about you leave the trash talk behind and focus on the debate?

Trial and Error denotes: "End Goal" Purpose, Reasoning, INTELLIGENCE!

What an ironic thing to say for someone who uses "Ipse Dixit" as his catch phrase. Prove it.

You're reduced to ascribing Sentience and Intelligence to Inanimate Objects.

Nop, that's your strawman. I've clearly my argument was that sentience and intelligence is not required for a purely mechanical process. I even called you out the last time you pulled that trick with your magnet board false analogy.

[Haven]

The quote from Michael Ruse used a few post back was a quote mine, taken out of context. Ruse himself explains this in this article:

So, what about Darwinism? I don't think believing that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection (his version or today's version) commits you to religious belief. I think that if, as I myself would, you extend the scope of the theory to an understanding of knowledge acquisition and justification and the same for morality -- evolutionary epistemology and evolutionary ethics -- then it can act as a religion substitute or alternative. It gives you a world picture that some people, starting with me, find entirely satisfying. I can't answer all of the questions -- Why is there something rather than nothing? How does the conscious mind arise from the physical brain? Is there a purpose to it all? -- but I am not sure that anyone can answer these questions in a satisfactory manner and I certainly don't go to bed worrying about them.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

As you can see, Ruse--a philosopher, not a biologist--clearly was referring to social and philosophical interpretations of evolution, as a philosophical treatise and social practice, and not biological evolution in and of itself. The intellectually dishonest claim that Ruse was admitting evolution isn't scientific is totally false.

[Enoch2021]

The quote from Michael Ruse used a few post back was a quote mine, taken out of context. Ruse himself explains this in this article:

So, what about Darwinism? I don't think believing that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection (his version or today's version) commits you to religious belief. I think that if, as I myself would, you extend the scope of the theory to an understanding of knowledge acquisition and justification and the same for morality -- evolutionary epistemology and evolutionary ethics -- then it can act as a religion substitute or alternative. It gives you a world picture that some people, starting with me, find entirely satisfying. I can't answer all of the questions -- Why is there something rather than nothing? How does the conscious mind arise from the physical brain? Is there a purpose to it all? -- but I am not sure that anyone can answer these questions in a satisfactory manner and I certainly don't go to bed worrying about them.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

As you can see, Ruse--a philosopher, not a biologist--clearly was referring to social and philosophical interpretations of evolution, as a philosophical treatise and social practice, and not biological evolution in and of itself. The intellectually dishonest claim that Ruse was admitting evolution isn't scientific is totally false.

The quote from Michael Ruse used a few post back was a quote mine, taken out of context.

It wasn't and he never said it was even in the "Tap Dance" explanation in the article you posted....11 Years Later! lol

Full Quote from 11 years earlier...

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish [Duane T. Gish the Creation Scientist] is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."--- Ruse (2000)

To take this "Out Of Context" would be a feat of Epic Proportions! I mean, just READ IT.

He would had to have said somewhere in THE SAME: Article/Periodical/Book ect, that evolution wasn't a Religion and more or less this statement was a RHETORICAL DEVICE in some sense.

Even the end of your source he's still "a Tap Dancing"...

"So the answer to the question "Is Darwinism a religion?" is varied, interesting and insightful."---Ruse (2011)

Then a CYA attached..."But I bet a million dollars that for the next 10 years it will be the first paragraph and only the first paragraph of this piece that will be quoted and requoted by those who are more interested in using my words for their own ends rather than for understanding what I am really trying to say."--- Ruse (2011)

Well what are you REALLY trying to say Professor?? Should we get an Abacus?

As you can see, Ruse--a philosopher, not a biologist--clearly was referring to social and philosophical interpretations of evolution, as a philosophical treatise and social practice, and not biological evolution in and of itself

So was Darwin...what's your point? ....

"...Darwins founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

The intellectually dishonest claim that Ruse was admitting evolution isn't scientific is totally false

geez.

ahhh, I wasn't using Ruse's statement to refute evolution as "non-scientific". I had already demonstrated that elsewhere...

All I need do is apply ground squirrel level analytics to the train-wreck INVALID Hypothesis via Defining "Science" along with the Scientific Method and comparing it to the tenets of said train-wreck and....... Voila.

Is Professor Ernst Mayr a Biologist? ....

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE TECHNIQUES FOR THE EXPLICATION OF SUCH EVENTS AND PROCESSES. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

So unless you Define "SCIENCE" errr, WITHOUT EXPERIMENTS you're up a creek!!

Then "Cherry on Top" it, here....

Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only". {Emphasis Mine}
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014

Full Discussion (Drubbing) here...: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 930#705930


Anything further?

regards

[Haven]

Just a few small points:

It wasn't and he never said it was even in the "Tap Dance" explanation in the article you posted....11 Years Later! lol

1) He did clearly say it was taken out of context. Please read the article--the entire discussion was about how it was taken out of context!

2) It's irrelevant when he clarified his 2000 statement. He could have said it 4.5 billion years later--it wouldn't have any effect on its truth value.

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish [Duane T. Gish the Creation Scientist] is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

This quote comes from a National Post (Canada) article from May of 2000. In it, Ruse was discussing the social and moral implications of evolution as understood through a branch of philosophical naturalism. Again, he was taking about the social/moral implications of evolution, not the theory itself.

I think this paragraph, the introduction to a book review (for which I was never paid) in a Canadian newspaper some 10 or so years ago, has received more attention and more repetition (especially on the Internet) than anything else I have ever written. More even than my claim that morality is an illusion put in place by the genes to make us social animals. No matter that I qualified it then and have qualified it before and ever since. "Ruse recants! Evolution is a religion! Read all about it!" Or more accurately, don't read all about it, because then you might find that that is not quite all that I had to say.

Is evolution, Darwinian evolution in particular, a religion? To sound like the philosopher that I am, it all depends on what you mean by "religion." It is "Intro to Philosophy of Religion," Lecture 1 material. Religion is not something like a right-angled triangle. Either you have a right angle or you don't, and that is the end of the matter. Religion calls for what we in the trade call a "polythetic" definition. There is no one feature that is necessary, but having several is sufficient. Belief in God? Very important, but what about the Unitarians or the Buddhists? Having a priesthood? Also important, but what about the Quakers? Having rituals or ceremonies? Quakers again. And so on.

What this means is that some things are clearly religions, some not and some on the border. Roman Catholicism has a priesthood, a moral code, a belief in God and much more. It is paradigmatically a religion. (This does not mean that it is better, but that it is clear cut.) Being an undergraduate at Florida State University is not joining a religion, even though on Saturdays in the fall at the football stadium one might wonder. What about the Freemasons? Well, really, you pays your money and you takes your choice.

So, what about Darwinism? I don't think believing that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection (his version or today's version) commits you to religious belief. I think that if, as I myself would, you extend the scope of the theory to an understanding of knowledge acquisition and justification and the same for morality -- evolutionary epistemology and evolutionary ethics -- then it can act as a religion substitute or alternative. It gives you a world picture that some people, starting with me, find entirely satisfying. I can't answer all of the questions -- Why is there something rather than nothing? How does the conscious mind arise from the physical brain? Is there a purpose to it all? -- but I am not sure that anyone can answer these questions in a satisfactory manner and I certainly don't go to bed worrying about them.


emphasis mine

Again, Ruse is clearly talking about what he perceives to be the societal implications of evolution, not the theory itself. In addition, he also seems to use the word "religion" in an unusual way.

For what it's worth, I think Ruse's "evolutionary morality" is nonsense, but it's certainly not the same thing as the actual theory of evolution. A thing isn't identical with its effects.

He would had to have said somewhere in THE SAME: Article/Periodical/Book ect, that evolution wasn't a Religion and more or less this statement was a RHETORICAL DEVICE in some sense.

It was a rhetorical device. Again, please read his clarification.

So was Darwin...what's your point? ....

What is it with creationists and Darwin? Evolutionary science has made 150 years of advancements since Darwin, and yet creationists seem so focused on singling out a man who died before any currently living human was even born.

"...Darwins founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

Again, Mayr wasn't referring to biological evolution, but the philosophy of biology, which was said to start with logical analysis of evolutionary theory. In science, word precision is very important, and one needs to look at the way words are being used (in context) to understand the arguments being made.

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE TECHNIQUES FOR THE EXPLICATION OF SUCH EVENTS AND PROCESSES. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

So unless you Define "SCIENCE" errr, WITHOUT EXPERIMENTS you're up a creek!!

There's no requirement in the scientific method for experimentation. The method only requires testing, of which experimentation is only one possible method.

For example, in sociology we rarely perform experiments, instead using other research methods (statistical inference, quasi-experimental methods, archival analysis, etc.). It's the same in biology. Biologists do this because a lot of the things they study aren't amenable to experimentation (how can you experiment on mating habits of frogs in their natural habitat, for instance?).

Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only". {Emphasis Mine}
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014

Again, "prediction" in science doesn't always concern the future. In the case of evolution, most predictions concern expected findings either in the present (in terms of DNA relationships, endogenous retroviruses, and so on) or in the past (in terms of specific fossil species, like Tiktaalik).

Edited to remove unclear sentence.

[Enoch2021]

Just a few small points:

It wasn't and he never said it was even in the "Tap Dance" explanation in the article you posted....11 Years Later! lol

1) He did clearly say it was taken out of context. Please read the article--the entire discussion was about how it was taken out of context!

2) It's irrelevant when he clarified his 2000 statement. He could have said it 4.5 billion years later--it wouldn't have any effect on its truth value.

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish [Duane T. Gish the Creation Scientist] is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

This quote comes from a National Post (Canada) article from May of 2000. In it, Ruse was discussing the social and moral implications of evolution as understood through a branch of philosophical naturalism. Again, he was taking about the social/moral implications of evolution, not the theory itself.

I think this paragraph, the introduction to a book review (for which I was never paid) in a Canadian newspaper some 10 or so years ago, has received more attention and more repetition (especially on the Internet) than anything else I have ever written. More even than my claim that morality is an illusion put in place by the genes to make us social animals. No matter that I qualified it then and have qualified it before and ever since. "Ruse recants! Evolution is a religion! Read all about it!" Or more accurately, don't read all about it, because then you might find that that is not quite all that I had to say.

Is evolution, Darwinian evolution in particular, a religion? To sound like the philosopher that I am, it all depends on what you mean by "religion." It is "Intro to Philosophy of Religion," Lecture 1 material. Religion is not something like a right-angled triangle. Either you have a right angle or you don't, and that is the end of the matter. Religion calls for what we in the trade call a "polythetic" definition. There is no one feature that is necessary, but having several is sufficient. Belief in God? Very important, but what about the Unitarians or the Buddhists? Having a priesthood? Also important, but what about the Quakers? Having rituals or ceremonies? Quakers again. And so on.

What this means is that some things are clearly religions, some not and some on the border. Roman Catholicism has a priesthood, a moral code, a belief in God and much more. It is paradigmatically a religion. (This does not mean that it is better, but that it is clear cut.) Being an undergraduate at Florida State University is not joining a religion, even though on Saturdays in the fall at the football stadium one might wonder. What about the Freemasons? Well, really, you pays your money and you takes your choice.

So, what about Darwinism? I don't think believing that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection (his version or today's version) commits you to religious belief. I think that if, as I myself would, you extend the scope of the theory to an understanding of knowledge acquisition and justification and the same for morality -- evolutionary epistemology and evolutionary ethics -- then it can act as a religion substitute or alternative. It gives you a world picture that some people, starting with me, find entirely satisfying. I can't answer all of the questions -- Why is there something rather than nothing? How does the conscious mind arise from the physical brain? Is there a purpose to it all? -- but I am not sure that anyone can answer these questions in a satisfactory manner and I certainly don't go to bed worrying about them.


emphasis mine

Again, Ruse is clearly talking about what he perceives to be the societal implications of evolution, not the theory itself. In addition, he also seems to use the word "religion" in an unusual way.

For what it's worth, I think Ruse's "evolutionary morality" is nonsense, but it's certainly not the same thing as the actual theory of evolution. A thing isn't identical with its effects.

He would had to have said somewhere in THE SAME: Article/Periodical/Book ect, that evolution wasn't a Religion and more or less this statement was a RHETORICAL DEVICE in some sense.

It was a rhetorical device. Again, please read his clarification.

So was Darwin...what's your point? ....

What is it with creationists and Darwin? Evolutionary science has made 150 years of advancements since Darwin, and yet creationists seem so focused on singling out a man who died before any currently living human was even born.

"...Darwins founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

Again, Mayr wasn't referring to biological evolution, but the philosophy of biology, which was said to start with logical analysis of evolutionary theory. In science, word precision is very important, and one needs to look at the way words are being used (in context) to understand the arguments being made.

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE TECHNIQUES FOR THE EXPLICATION OF SUCH EVENTS AND PROCESSES. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

So unless you Define "SCIENCE" errr, WITHOUT EXPERIMENTS you're up a creek!!

There's no requirement in the scientific method for experimentation. The method only requires testing, of which experimentation is only one possible method.

For example, in sociology we rarely perform experiments, instead using other research methods (statistical inference, quasi-experimental methods, archival analysis, etc.). It's the same in biology. Biologists do this because a lot of the things they study aren't amenable to experimentation (how can you experiment on mating habits of frogs in their natural habitat, for instance?).

Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only". {Emphasis Mine}
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014

Again, "prediction" in science doesn't always concern the future. In the case of evolution, most predictions concern expected findings either in the present (in terms of DNA relationships, endogenous retroviruses, and so on) or in the past (in terms of specific fossil species, like Tiktaalik).

Edited to remove unclear sentence.

1) He did clearly say it was taken out of context. Please read the article--the entire discussion was about how it was taken out of context!

2) It's irrelevant when he clarified his 2000 statement. He could have said it 4.5 billion years later--it wouldn't have any effect on its truth value.

1. He did not. I did read it....hence, I quoted some parts of "it" including the continued Waffling..."So the answer to the question "Is Darwinism a religion?" is varied, interesting and insightful."---Ruse (2011)

How can it be "NO Religion" Whatsoever.... and the same time, the question be: "Varied", Interesting", and "Insightful" ?? Define Contradictory...?


2. KaBoom! Ya see, to support your frivolous Charge of "Quote Mining" you first have to know what "Quote Mining" is.

"Quote Mining"- The repeated use of quotes out of context in order to skew or contort the meaning of a passage or speech by an author on a controversial subject.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... e%20mining

The "Context" is in the ORIGINAL PIECE....not the Re-Eval 11 Years Later!! ...Which is Ipso Facto Inherently: "Out of CONTEXT" KaBooM!

Again, Ruse is clearly talking about what he perceives to be the societal implications of evolution

That's not what this says...

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish [Duane T. Gish the Creation Scientist] is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." ---(Ruse 2000) {Emphasis Mine}

"In the Beginning". Ya see, "Implications" means DOWNSTREAM from.... "After Affects", NOT..."in the beginning".

For what it's worth, I think Ruse's "evolutionary morality" is nonsense

I would go "A Tad" further than just his "evolutionary morality", personally.

It was a rhetorical device

lol...what in the world?

What is it with creationists and Darwin? Evolutionary science has made 150 years of advancements since Darwin

Well didn't he first propose this Nonsense? evolution hasn't made or assisted in any advancements whatsoever, in fact it's hindered "Actual" Science....

Dino Soft Tissue...why look, they went extinct 80 million years ago, lol. KaBooM!

evolutionist remarks...

The failure to recognize the full implications of [non-protein"coding DNA] may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.'
Mattick, J., cited in: Gibbs, W.W., The unseen genome: gems among the junk, Scientific American 289(5):26"33, November 2003.

"...Darwins founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009


Again, Mayr wasn't referring to biological evolution, but the philosophy of biology

What on Earth is this? Is this like the "Philosophy" of Chemistry? Who is the father of evolution? Who is the father of the Philosophy of Biology? See "The Connection"?

There's no requirement in the scientific method for experimentation.

Ahhhh,

Define a Scientific Hypothesis (CITE SOURCE) and Provide an Example.....?

For example, in sociology....

So let me get this straight...you're placing "Sociology" or near the Universal Vicinity of the Empirical Sciences: Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry/Biology as your justification?? What's next, Economics?

In the case of evolution, most predictions....

evolution predictions? What evolution? You're putting the Cart before the Horse...

From two of the Fathers of evolution theory...

General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

Using the "Scientific Method", can you explain these..

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Create Their Own Software....?

Again, "prediction" in science doesn't always concern the future.

Prediction--- a statement about what will happen or might happen in the future: the act of saying what will happen in the future.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prediction

Prediction--- to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell: to foretell the future; make a prediction.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/predict

"So a prediction is a statement about the future".
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/prediction

Predicition--- a statement about what you think will happen in the future.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dict ... prediction

"In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what will happen under specific conditions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction ... in_science

....in terms of DNA relationships, endogenous retroviruses.

Where'd you get DNA?

Did they "Predict" that all life will have DNA? Astonishing!! I "predict" Next years Super Bowl combined score will be between 1 and 200. Mark it down, you heard it here FIRST!!!

Please CITE The Prediction: Author/ Specific Prediction/Date and Time Stamp.

ERV's? lol. Is this "junk" DNA? Please Please Post this PRE-diction. (SEE: Mattick/Biggest mistakes/ in History/ Molecular Biology, above). This falls in the Catastrophic Failure Department of POST-dictions...there's quite a few others; Speaking of which...

....or in the past (in terms of specific fossil species like Tiktaalik...)

So a PRE-diction of Tiktaalik by name or what? Please CITE The Prediction: Author/ "Specific PRE-diction"/Date and Time Stamp.

The Good News: Tiktaalik is dated 379 million years old "Allegedly". The Bad News...there are tracks of four legged animals dated 397 Million years old discovered in Poland (18 Million years older than Tiktaalik). Which led to these statements....


"They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record."
Niedzwiedzki, G., Szrek, P., Narkiewicz, K., Narkiewicz, M. and Ahlberg, P., Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland, Nature 463(7227):43"48, 2010;

We thought wed pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods. We have to rethink the whole thing.
Palaeontologist Jenifer Clack, University of Cambridge, UK; in: Curry, M., Ancient four-legged beasts leave their mark, ScienceNOW Daily News, 6 January 2010

"These results force us to reconsider our whole picture of the transition from fish to land animals," says Per Ahlberg of Uppsala University, one of the two leaders of the study."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 114420.htm

As for fossils in General....

Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story"amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. {Emphasis Mine}
Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time"Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999, pp. 116-117

"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps." {Emphasis Mine}
Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time"Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999, p. 32

"After the Fact"----- POST-Diction (Ad Hoc Fallacy).

Evolutionist review of (H. Gee) In Search of Deep Time...

"We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions." {Emphasis Mine}
Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.

It appears you're having difficulty discerning between "Science" and "Fairytales". Ya see....

Science: Method---- The Scientific Method.
Fairytales (aka: "Just So" Stories): Method ----- Imagination.


Anything Further?

regards