Yeah…I was simply trying to spell out the obvious 
2 Likes
Man! People are so selfish! They sacrifice themselves for the survival of their children, family, friends, nation and species. How can we stand all this outrageously selfish behavior.
I cannot but wonder at what kind of twisted agenda people have for bending over so far backwards to defend selfishness as universal.
The real point is that human beings have learned the value of cooperative behavior as one of the best survival strategies. Sure it can be described as enlightened self interest. SO WHAT?!? Does this somehow defend the person who does the opposite, sacrificing the well being of others for their own desires? NO, it does not!
I really do not understand why you object to the term “godless”
There is no God in science. Science does not accept the existence of God. everytime you argue the scientific evolution you are arguing against God. Everytime you back up @T_aquaticus you are backing up his atheism. Everytime you try and kock me down you re arguing against a Christian viewpoint and therefore against God.
It does not matter how you look at providence. God is not in scientific eviolution.
There is no such thing as theistic meteorology. The weather runs by the rules God created (provided) God does not (need to) control every raindrop or gust of wind. If He did then meteorolgy woulfd be trying to second guess God!
Richard
No I do not need God to fix my computer, refrigerator, or TV… sorry! And I am not going to pay a doctor or surgeon to pray for my health problems. God is not a part of these for a reason. It is not because God isn’t helpful, but because we need to see what we can do for ourselves without asking God to do everything.
That is the purpose of science – looking for the explanations apart from the theological pomposity of religion mongers to help people who want to take some responsibility for things in our lives. Sure I will pray for God’s help. BUT… if we don’t see what we can do about problems ourselves, God has good reason to doubt our sincerity… and… good reason to level contempt at religious people as He does in Isaiah chapter 1.
There is no such thing as theistic evolution in science. Theistic evolution is just a theological response to creationists. Evolution runs by the rules God created (provided) God does not (need to) control every mutation, raindrop, or gust of wind. SO… there is no such thing as “godless evolution” any more than there is a “godless meteorology.”
Then why do you tirelessly (and exasperatingly ; - ) continue to insist he must somehow be forced into it?
You contradict yourself every time you say that because you somehow you think God should be or is in the science of evolution.
”There is no God in science.” - Richard Gillett
Science does not accept or reject God because science has no methods to address the fact of his existence. You perpetually confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism, yet you paint yourself as being philosophically adept.
There you go again. Every time I argue for scientific meteorology I am arguing against God, too. Of course I am. 
And again. Every time I back up @T I am backing up his science and saying absolutely nothing about his philosophical naturalism. Do you know why? Because we are talking about methodological naturalism. You say so yourself, but for some inexplicable reason you cannot get it straight:
”There is no God in science.” - Richard Gillett
I have no need to knock you down. It is obvious to everyone but yourself that you have no legs to stand on.
Hey, I can concur with that! 
Do you know why? You should:
”There is no God in science.” - Richard Gillett
Guess what. I can concur with that too – I have a good reason:
”There is no God in science.” - Richard Gillett
In other words – please understand, there is no God in methodological naturalism.
Biology runs by the rules God created. God does not control every mutation in DNA or every genome. If He did then evolution would be trying to second guess God!
In other words – please, please understand, there is no God in methodological naturalism.
”There is no God in science.” - Richard Gillett
By the way, I’m making no comment on the “morality” of the drive to maximize individual reproductive success that exists in nature, simply stating that that is what natural selection will operate on. As self-conscious and self-reflecting humans, we do have the option of overriding whatever behavioural tendencies evolution has bequeathed us. I, for one, do think that humans do have the ability for truly altruistic acts.
3 Likes
Agreed, with respect to the science.
”There is no God in science.” - Richard Gillett
Science does not accept or reject God (or his providence) because science has no methods to address the fact of his existence.
Silence [funny typo and autocorrect – maybe a moderator could end our misery 
], science is about methodological naturalism.
”There is no God in science.” - Richard Gillett
1 Like
Science does not address the existence of God, so it neither accepts or rejects the existence of God. It is a matter of scope of relevance.
Just because weather is forecast based on understanding of natural causality does not make meteorology atheistic.
5 Likes
Are you really that clueless?
It is not about forcing God into science. Science is about understanding God’s creation. Scientists do not include God because
You know this.
But Christianity does. And I am a Christian. And as a Christian I am not going to blindly accept what Science tells me (because science does not believe in God)
So, if I am going to accept science it has to include god. So I am going to listen to science and see what they cannot. How god fits in! I am not shoehorning god into science!. I am understanding how science conforms with my view of God. And it does! I am not disagreeing with what science sees. I am disagreeing with what science concludes. And they (you) get really upset wth this. (Because they cannot see God at all within science. I stil have no idea why you get upset)
I do not use either! I am a Christian first! I studied science. I know science, I do not dismiss science, but I will not accept the scientific view of God! I do not use any form of naturalism*! Naturalism excludes God!
You repeat it like a mantra but it means nothing. You may as well be chanting
Four legs good two legs better!
There is no god in any Naturalism Naturalism means by nature, not by God!
You do not beleive that.(You seem to beleive that He does)
Evolution cannot second guess anything. Evolution has no intelligence.(IOW you are trying to be clever and failing)
Then stop trying. Instead of trying to argue against me, let the words stand. If they are wrong then let others decide instead of telling them so!. You may not understand or beleive what I say but that does not mean others do the same. (and you clearly do not understand otherwise we would not be having this conversation)
It is not obvious to every one. Everyone does not see evolution the way you do. And most of the Christians here should understand why I say what I do (ironically, including the YECs that I do not support.)
The more you try and bolster up evolutionary theory the less room there is for God. If I am right and there are flaws in evolutionary theory then God still has a look in (even if science cannot see Him, they cannot replace Him with more science)
You really have never met anyone like me. You are used to arguing against YEC. You even wnat me to be YEC so that you know how to argue. I am not. I am a theistic evolutionist. Which means I include God in evolutionary creation. What is wrong wth that?
Just because I do not see it as you do does not make me wrong. Not because I am right and you are wrong, (or reverse) but because right and wrong is not black and white. (And evolution does not understand everything)
Richard
When someone talks about “godless evolution” who also says that the scriptures can be wrong and that God has done evil, I have to wonder if the real issue is that they see life as so complex that God couldn’t have made rules for it – which paints God as less than competent.
1 Like
It’s also a serious insult to all those Christians who teach university-level science who don’t put God into science other than having posters and such on their office walls or even doors declaring agreement with Kepler’s proposition that in science we but think God’s thoughts after Him – or for that matter those Christians who teach high school level science, since they are also certainly more educated in the matter than those who declare that science is “godless”.
I can “back up” someone’s recipe for rhubarb pie without affirming her skill in any other baking that involves something tasty inside a pastry crust – after all, baking a rhubarb pie requires “methodological baking”, right.
1 Like
But that is not the only thing that natural selection will operate on, it will also operate on ‘family’ fitness. Fitness is a property of a genotype, so success can be increased by keeping the gene pool broader.
No, selection operates on phenotypes as products of genotypes (which are properties of individuals not families or groups). A “broad gene pool” (do you mean a diversity of alleles?) is only relevant insofar as it affects individual fitness. Some animals appear to choose mates that are genetically unlike themselves because it will maximize the vigor of their own offspring (increase heterozygosity in their offspring). But this is a result of natural selection acting on individual’s mate choice to mazimize the individual’s fitness. There is no need to appeal to the “fitness” of a family or species here.
So does every science teacher and every science lecturer in every school and university that I am aware of.
So does every recruiter in every company interviewing candidates for science-based jobs.
So does every line manager in every company managing employees working in science-based careers.
Science is not a game. Its rules are deadly serious – in some cases, even literally so. If you were to give the rules of science the level of disrespect in the workplace that I see them being given in young earthist and evolution denialist claims, dismissing it as “a law unto itself” with “its own rules” in that way, at best you would end up stuck in heavily micromanaged low-risk, low-responsibility, low-pay roles, and at worst you would end up driving your employer out of business and possibly even killing people in the process. If, that is, you hadn’t been fired for professional malpractice and sued out of your insurance first.
Where? Which rules did you explain were not being followed, and what evidence did you present in support of such a claim?
2 Likes
Um, I hope you realize that works the other way too. Clearly.
And speaking of working the other way too, you have something in common with Richard Dawkins. He conflates the philosophical with the methodological same as you – you do it from the theistic side and he the atheistic.
The better analogy would be that you deny she made it at all. She didn’t even buy it. It made itself. Its really quite interesting:
The evolution of the pie is a little vague. The prime use of pastry is not really obvious and is subject to dsipute.
Flour is an evolution of wheat grain. It was crushed because that makes it easier to combine with… There are actually a large number of varieties.Comparisons would indicate a single ancestor but closer investigtions show minor differences that indicate a divergence earlier on from the grass roots. it is a good example of divergent and then convergent evolution where the final examples are perfectlty adapted for similar environments. As with the pie itself the primary function of flour is unclear. Some people even think it was originally just a thickener.
Milk and butter share the same acestor but the milk pasturised to make it more safe to drink while butter churned and emulsified.
Sugar is the most iteresting. It comes from both sugar beet and sugar cane but that is evolutionary impossible as they are exactly the same and therfore must have come fro the same source.
Shall I go on?
I trust that you can see and identify evolutionary parallels. However, human beings are much more difficult to construct thean a rhubarb pie but evolution would deny any sort of designer or author of the recipe.
Richard
PS I like analogies.
Just like atheistic meteorology denies any sort of God. Wait, atheistic meteorology?! What is that? Oh, you know, it’s the opposite of theistic meteorology, just like atheistic evolution is the opposite of theistic evolution.
Does not exist
Is what the evolutionary theory is. There is no God in evolutionary theory, therefore it is aetheistic,
That we can agree upon (asuming you actually believe it)
You promote atheistic evolution. IOW you do not include God (in your posts). You claim purely natural controlled processes and progressions like herd drift (or whatever it is you keep repeating)
If you are going to claim God’s involvement, show it! (and when you do you have left scientific evolution)
Richard
Just like the dreaded godless and awful atheistic meteorology which is anathema to Christians. We need to stick to theistic meteorology, right?
Stop conflating methodological science with philosophical naturalism.
What on earth are you talking about?
You are literally talking gibberish.
Richard