Pope Says Evolution Can't Be Proven

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1244515' date='Apr 15 2007, 03:47 PM']Man, Justin, you have [i]no life[/i]. I didn't realize that was your display pic...*giggles*[/quote]

This coming from the young lady who showed me the website to make the picture?

And precisely [i]who[/i] has no life?

[mortify]

[quote]Mortify, I have rarely seen such a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. Is this your analysis, or one that you have learned from someone else?[/quote]Were you employing the scientific method with your scenario? I think you were just presenting an imaginative possibility. Likewise the scientist who tries to explain how the eye formed is using more imagination than fact. In this way it's like myth-making.

[quote]Again, Mortify, that is such an extreme misunderstanding of the word "spontaneous" that I wonder if you came up with this particular argument, or if you heard it from another source. The word "spontaneous," like many English words, can have different meanings in different contexts, but in this context the meaning is "happening without any apparent cause." Again, you must remember that we are speaking of science: science is not competent to evaluate non-materialistic issues. If event A occurs randomly, and event B occurs because of divine will, science is not capable of differentiating between the two.[/quote]

Justin, the problem is science may inadverently describe event B as "spontaneous" since it can't differentiate. If it doesn't have the ability to distinguish, why even speculate? Saying the principle means of change in evolution is without a cause denies Divine creation outright. Creation implies deliberate and planned design orchestrated by the Divine Will. Whether this design took a day or millions of years is not the problem. If the complexity of the human body compels us to question the notion that all of this is the product of innumeralble improbable mutations, why is considering deliberate and planned mutations so problematic? Doesn't the science in some way lead you towards believing God created us?

Just as an aside, you seem to be a spiritual person. Wouldn't you agree you can somehow differentiate coincidence from purpose/destiny? I've found that I can, but I can't really explain it. Perhaps I'm alone with this?

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='mortify' post='1244624' date='Apr 15 2007, 06:11 PM']Were you employing the scientific method with your scenario? I think you were just presenting an imaginative possibility. Likewise the scientist who tries to explain how the eye formed is using more imagination than fact. In this way it's like myth-making.[/quote]

Again, Mortify, that is such a grotesque mischaracterization of the scientific process as to place serious question in my mind as to whether the person who originated the analysis did so maliciously or not. This is why I asked where you got your analysis--I cannot dream of you being deliberately dishonest, so I shall assume that you have heard someone else's disingenuous analysis and repeat it in good faith. However, let me assure you that your good faith has been badly abused.

The [i]only[/i] place that "imagination," or anything remotely resembling imagination, has in the scientific process is the initial formulation of the statement of the idea. The initial statement is formulated as a testable question--called a hypothesis. In turn the hypothesis is tested by the scientist who developed it--but (and this is a very important caveat), the tests that are performed are tests that are designed to prove the hypothesis false. [i]If[/i] that particular scientist cannot disprove his own hypothesis, he publishes, and other scientists reproduce the experiments to see if they can prove the hypothesis false.

If, after years of testing, the hypothesis is not disproven, [i]and[/i] it is useful for furthering our understanding of related concepts, then--and only then--is that hypothesis called a "theory." A theory is "a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena." But even then, there is no "theory" that is immune from further testing, and possible disproval.

The "Theory of Evolution" is actually a complex set of rigorously tested theories, hypotheses still being tested, and obvious facts ("obvious facts" including such things as "different fossils appear in different geological layers"). The individual theories that make up the over-arching Theory of Evolution have been rigorously tested, in some cases for over a century. Yet there is no part of that theory that is free from continued testing, doubt, or even downright rejection by an individual scientist.

Mortify, I want to ask you a question: suppose a scientist developed a hypothesis that disproved a major component of the Theory of Evolution. In your personal opinion, would he most likely suppress that knowledge, or would he test it, then publish?

[quote]Justin, the problem is science may inadverently describe event B as "spontaneous" since it can't differentiate.[/quote]Mortify, that is one of the limitations of science: science [b]only[/b] deals with natural phenomena. Science is incapable of measuring God, just as it is incapable of measuring the soul.

[quote]If it doesn't have the ability to distinguish, why even speculate?[/quote]

Because without that speculation, we would lack not only the theory of evolution, but also the very computers that you and I are speaking of. The same methods and rationale of scientific method and scientific investigation was used to discover and utilize electricity. One of the first step along that path was actually taken by our own Benjamin Franklin, yet his work also met strong resistance from religious authorities, because lightning was thought to be the power of God demonstrated on earth, and that interfering with lightning was presumption.

Franklin's reply to such sentiments was as follows:

[quote][Nollet]speaks as if he thought it Presumption in Man to propose guarding himself against Thunders of Heaven! Surely the Thunder of Heaven is no more supernatural than the Rain, Hail, or Sunshine of Heaven, against the Inconvenience of which we guard by Roofs and Shades without Scruple.[/quote]

Mortify, where do we draw the line between what is acceptable to investigate and what is not? At what point does our investigation become "why even speculate" in your mind?

[quote]Saying the principle means of change in evolution is without a cause denies Divine creation outright.[/quote]This is also grossly incorrect. You seem to have fallen into the same error as Richard Dawkins, that scientific examination of natural phenomena somehow "invalidates" faith. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[quote]Just as an aside, you seem to be a spiritual person. Wouldn't you agree you can somehow differentiate coincidence from purpose/destiny? I've found that I can, but I can't really explain it. Perhaps I'm alone with this?[/quote]

I can, but such a differentiation is subjective, prone to error (because we are human, and are subject to error), and not particularly useful in a scientific context. Mortify, God has given us the wonderful gifts of Creation, an inquisitive mind, and a boundless curiosity. Science is not the only method of inquiry and investigation that we have of discovering more about the world that God has given us. And lest it preturb your heart, there is NOTHING that God has gifted us with that can come between us and He--the only thing that can do so is our refusal to draw nigh to Him.

[mortify]

[quote]Again, Mortify, that is such a grotesque mischaracterization of the scientific process as to place serious question in my mind as to whether the person who originated the analysis did so maliciously or not. This is why I asked where you got your analysis--I cannot dream of you being deliberately dishonest, so I shall assume that you have heard someone else's disingenuous analysis and repeat it in good faith. However, let me assure you that your good faith has been badly abused.[/quote]I was not saying all of science is myth making. I was referring to your scenario of valve formation and of other scenarios like it (i.e. the evolution of the eye). The natural question is how do these things evolve since they are so complex. We weren't present to observe the evolution of these processes and we have no facts to guide us in this regard. We can only hope to imagine a possible scenario.

Again, I'm not saying science itself or all theories are myths.

[quote]Mortify, I want to ask you a question: suppose a scientist developed a hypothesis that disproved a major component of the Theory of Evolution. In your personal opinion, would he most likely suppress that knowledge, or would he test it, then publish?[/quote]

I honestly don't know. Eventually I'm confident his information would be made public.

[quote]Because without that speculation, we would lack not only the theory of evolution, but also the very computers that you and I are speaking of. The same methods and rationale of scientific method and scientific investigation was used to discover and utilize electricity. One of the first step along that path was actually taken by our own Benjamin Franklin, yet his work also met strong resistance from religious authorities, because lightning was thought to be the power of God demonstrated on earth, and that interfering with lightning was presumption.[/quote]I'm not disagreeing with you. Speculating into how things operate is fine and noble but you admitted science can't speculate into the "why." When you brand a process as spontaneous you've already closed further speculation. You also already delved into the "why" since if it is spontaneous, there can be no room for a Creator to act because then it would be deliberate (and not spontaneous).

[quote]Mortify, where do we draw the line between what is acceptable to investigate and what is not? At what point does our investigation become "why even speculate" in your mind?[/quote]
What is within the confines of the field is acceptable. For science it's addressing how things operate.

[quote]This is also grossly incorrect. You seem to have fallen into the same error as Richard Dawkins, that scientific examination of natural phenomena somehow "invalidates" faith. Nothing could be further from the truth.[/quote]

I should have been more clear, I wasn't talking about science as a whole but that particular understanding of evolution which describes it as a purely blind process. If evolution is a blind process, and we are the product of innumerable spontaneous mutations, there can still be a God but not a Creator. Creation would rule out spontaneity and infuse purpose, meaning, and design into the world.