Life from a rock?

JVL et al, while it would be beyond scope of UD for me to engage in more detail, some pointers are advisable. First, there is generic, readily accessible evidence that points to a finitely remote, necessary being root of reality causally adequate for a world containing rational, responsible, morally governed creatures, us. That sets a bill of requisites: powerful, intelligent, knowledgeable, inherently good, utterly wise. On the Science side, cosmological fine tuning that sets up a cosmos adapted in many ways to hosting C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life points to design by extracosmic power. Next, cells have coded, algorithmic D/RNA, pointing to language and goal directed purpose. Beyond, the obvious engineering of life forms (and the subtler integration of ecosystems) point to design even for someone contemplating 4 - 7 kya or beyond. So, it is unsurprising that generic ethical theism or thoughts pointing to it will be found under many heads and in many cultures. However, the Hebraic-Christian frame [and its Islamic offshoot and key aspects of some forms of Hinduism] are distinct. In the Hebraic-Christian frame, the key theme is, God is there and is not silent . . . the modern notion that God is so distant and mysterious has more to do with the corner we have painted ourselves into than anything else. In particular, God speaks to the future and fulfills it, with messiah as key hope. The Christian faith holds that messiah has come, and as Isa 52 - 53 predicted, has suffered, becoming our wounded, once dead, now living healer, saviour, rescuer. And, Lord. With 500 eyewitnesses that could not be silenced. That is the challenge that drove the Christian synthesis of the legacy of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, building on the heritage of the Fertile Crescent and its river valley civilisations. That is the challenge that confronts us today. KF kairosfocus

CD at 6, The wild rantings of a fearful man. Darwin forbid that ID is connected to Christianity by a lot of people. Or worse, gets taught to kids in schools! I was reading some non-reviews about a book on Intelligent Design. The big concern? "If this gets into the schools." I mean, this could topple Atheist-Marxist influence in schools. Some people might start believing in God. relatd

Relatd/66

Einstein dealt with what was known in his time. I think his ideas will be overthrown. He could not complete his Unified Field Theory, where general relativity and electro-magnetism could be connected. Additional discoveries in fundamental physics are being made and will continue to be made. I propose that a final connection has already been made but such a discovery would remain a closely guarded secret for whoever possessed it.

I think you are confusing general relativity, etc., with ID. ID has already come up with a Unified Field Theory: The God of the Bible. And like your "predictions" for Einstein, ID's ideas will "will be overthrown." More accurately, ID's "ideas" likely will never catch on except in religious circles..... chuckdarwin

It appears to me, just based on comments here, that the Atheist prefers chaos. Quantum mechanics, especially quantum entanglement, is the latest plaything. It is a mystery and a magnet for an atheist interpretation. More chaos. Another incomprehensible phenomenon. Chaos, again. Referring to quantum computers, which exist, and experiments with atom smashers, things smaller than atoms are being studied. Events that occur at very short time scales are being studied. Even in living things. Protein folding has no scaffold but it works. Protein folds are intricate and have been modeled in three dimensions. How is this shape maintained? What controls it? As more experiments are done to study living things, two things are observed: greater and greater complexity and incredible order. The interplay of parts is also incredibly complex. Such machinery does not appear by chance. Einstein dealt with what was known in his time. I think his ideas will be overthrown. He could not complete his Unified Field Theory, where general relativity and electro-magnetism could be connected. Additional discoveries in fundamental physics are being made and will continue to be made. I propose that a final connection has already been made but such a discovery would remain a closely guarded secret for whoever possessed it. relatd

Maybe this has been posted but a video from a couple years ago on Darwin’s Doubt has recently been re-published.

Darwin’s Biggest Problem | Long Story Short: Evolution

The interesting thing in the video is not the problem of the Cambrian Explosion but the attitude towards Darwin’s ideas. At 7:30 into this short video the announcer says

If it’s so difficult to prove what these scientists want to believe why do so many cling to their presuppositions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cT7Z0D7_h4&t=460s The more interesting question has always been why do humans fiercely defend the indefensible. Here is the YouTube channel that published this video. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd-MyawrutjiUKl-DfbQ0vQ Not a lot published in last two years but just yesterday there was a video on OOL and past few videos were on OOL. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Axlu-oGkeQ The comments reveal the “begging the question” fallacy in full display as true non believers desperately want a non intelligent explanation and just assume it’s there somewhere. jerry

Martin_r/32 You might want to clean your keyboard. It looks like your parenthesis key is sticking.... chuckdarwin

In fact, just two weeks before Darwin’s book was to be published, Darwin’s brother, Erasmus, told Darwin, “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”

Scientific Method Excerpt: Darwin was concerned about the effect of abandoning the scientific method. To console Darwin, just two weeks before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, Erasmus Darwin, his brother wrote: “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.” https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/scientific-method/

And now, over a century and a half later, the situation of 'the facts won't fit' still has not changed for Darwinists. To this day, Darwinists still have no experimental research that would establish Darwin’s theory as being scientifically true, As Dr Richard Nelson further noted in his book’ Darwin, Then and Now’, “After 150 years of research,,, the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.”

Darwin, Then and Now – by Dr. Richard William Nelson – Book Preview Excerpt: as a theology graduate from Christ’s College, Darwin set out on a mission to discover the natural laws of evolution with a passion. Darwin Then and Now reveals how the emerging nineteenth century philosophies influenced Darwin to eventually abandon the Scientific Method. Darwin conceded that The Origin of Species was just “one long argument from the beginning to the end”—not a scientific treatise. DARWIN, THEN AND NOW highlights Darwin’s top 15 contradictions in arguing for natural selection. Just two years before the publication of The Origin of Species, in writing to a friend, Darwin confided, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” With more than 300 quotations from Darwin, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW is an exposé on what Darwin actually said concerning his “point of view” on the origin of species. After 150 years of research with more than 700 references from scientists, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW chronicles how the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Even the popular twentieth-century Central Dogma theoretical mechanism of evolution has been abandoned. Today, a cohesive mechanism of evolution and evidence of a Tree of Life continues to remain as elusive as Darwin infamous drawing – “I Think.” – ibid

In fact, in further proving that Darwinism is not based on Bacon's inductive form of reasoning, there are now many lines of experimental evidence that directly falsify core presuppositions of Darwin's theory,,,, empirical falsifications that Darwinists simply ignore.

Darwinism vs. Falsification - list 1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. 2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. 4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, (i.e. disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). 6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. 7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “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.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” 8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” 9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. 10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! 11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. 12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. 13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! 14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. Link to Defense of each claim https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/

Moreover, Darwinian evolution, (besides being falsified by many lines of empirical evidence ), is simply not needed in as a guiding principle, and/or as a heuristic, in biology. (i.e. Darwinian evolution is not even needed as a primary presupposition within the 'top-down' Deductive form of reasoning of the ancient Greeks).

"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology." ?Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. - Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - 2005?http://www.discovery.org/a/2816? “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” - Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000). “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” - Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005?

Scientifically speaking, Darwinian evolution has simply been a bust. Even Jerry Coyne admits as much

“Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” (Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006)

In fact, in so far as Darwinian evolution has been used as a guiding principle and/or heuristic in science, it had grossly misled scientists into blind alleys, such as with its false prediction of junk DNA, vestigial organs, with eugenics, i.e. 'selective' abortion, etc.. etc… In fact, it is also very interesting to note that Francis Bacon, (who was, again, the father of the scientific method), in his book “Novum Organum”, also stated that the best way to tell if a philosophy is true or not is by the ‘fruits produced’. Specifically Bacon stated that, “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.”

Is Biology Approaching the Threshold of Design Acceptance? – January 8, 2019 Excerpt: Simultaneously, biomimetics fulfills one of the goals of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the champion of systematic, methodical investigation into the natural world. In Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum, Bacon told how best to judge good natural philosophy, what we call science: “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” Good fruits are pouring forth from the cornucopia of biologically inspired design. What has Darwinism done for the world lately? https://evolutionnews.org/2019/01/is-biology-approaching-the-threshold-of-design-acceptance/

And in regards to society at large, and 150 years after Darwinian evolution burst onto the scene, (masquerading as a empirical science), and in regards to the ‘fruits produced’ by Darwinian ideology, we can now accurately surmise that, Darwinian ideology has been a complete and utter disaster for man that has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man.

Atheism’s Body Count * It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world. – Atheism’s Tendency Towards Totalitarianism Rather Than Freedom What is so strange and odd that in spite of their outward rejection of religion and all its superstitions, they feel compelled to set up cults of personality and worship of the State and its leaders that is so totalitarian that the leaders are not satisfied with mere outward obedience; rather they insist on total mind control and control of thoughts, ideas and beliefs. They institute Gulags and “re-education” centers to indoctrinate anyone who even would dare question any action or declaration of the “Dear Leader.” Even the Spanish Inquisition cannot compare to the ruthlessness and methodical efficiency of these programs conducted on so massive a scale. While proclaiming freedom to the masses, they institute the most methodical efforts to completely eliminate freedom from the people, and they do so all “on behalf” of the proletariat. A completely ordered and totally unfree totalitarian State is routinely set up in place of religion, because it is obviously so profoundly better society. It is also strange that Stalin was a seminarian who rejected Christianity and went on to set up himself as an object of worship. It seems that impulse to religious devotion is present in all, whether that be in traditional forms or secular inventions. https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/ Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their ideology – July 2020 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831

In short, and to repeat, Darwinian evolution, instead of ever producing any ‘good fruit’ for man, (as true empirical sciences normally do), has instead produced nothing but unimaginably horrid consequences for man.. Verse:

Matthew 7:18-20 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Thus in conclusion, JVL may falsely claim, and speculate, that some other worldview, other than Christianity, may have eventually brought modern science into existence, but that baseless speculation does nothing to alleviate the fact that his own atheistic worldview of Darwinian evolution cannot provide the necessary presuppositions for 'doing science' in the first place, and, in fact, his worldview of Darwinian atheism is found to not even be based on the scientific method, i.e. the inductive methodology, of Francis Bacon in the first place. And again, if JVL were intellectually honest, this catastrophic failure of his own atheistic worldview to ground, or be grounded within, the scientific method itself should concern him much more greatly than any of the superfluous criticisms against Christianity that he has thus far listed. Of supplemental note, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris, Coyne), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, April 18, 2021 - Defense of each claim https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595

Contrary to what atheists such as JVL desperately want to believe, it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

bornagain77

This new form of ‘bottom up’ inductive reasoning, which lays at the basis of the scientific method itself, was championed by Francis Bacon over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks in 1620 in his book that was entitled 'Novum Organum'. Which is translated as ‘New Method’. In the title of that book, Bacon is specifically referencing Aristotle’s work 'Organon', which was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on logic and syllogism. In other words, 'Organum' was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on deductive reasoning.

The Organon and the logic perspective of computation – 2016 Excerpt: The works of Aristotle on logic are collectively known as the Organon, that is, the ” instrument ” or ” tool ” of thought. In the ” Prior Analytics “, Aristotle introduced a list of inference rules that concern with the relation of premises to conclusion in arguments (syllogisms). His aim was to determine which kinds of arguments are valid. The validity of an argument is characterized and inferred based on its logical form (deduction) and for this reason Aristotle is considered as the father of formal logic. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303407444_The_Organon_and_the_logic_perspective_of_computation

And thus in his book “Novum Organum”, Bacon was specifically and directly championing a entirely new method of 'bottom-up' inductive reasoning, (where repeated experimentation played a central role in one’s reasoning to a general truth), over and above Aristotle’s 'top-down' deductive form of reasoning, (where one’s apriori assumption of a general truth, (i.e. your major premises), played a central role in one’s reasoning), which had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around for 2000 years at that time.

Deductive and Inductive Reasoning (Bacon vs Aristotle – Scientific Revolution) – video Excerpt: Deductive reasoning, which uses general premises to arrive at a certain conclusion, has been around since Aristotle. In his book Novum Organum (1620, translated ‘new method’), Sir Francis Bacon advanced a new way of philosophical inquiry known as inductive reasoning, in which the inquirer comes to a probable conclusion based on several specific observations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdpPABoTzE

And indeed, repeated experimentation, ever since it was first set forth by Francis Bacon in his inductive methodology, has been the cornerstone of the scientific method. And has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more “exacting, and illuminating”, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, “educated guesses” that follow from the 'top-down' deductive form of reasoning that had been the dominant form of reasoning up to that time.

Francis Bacon, 1561–1626 Excerpt: Called the father of empiricism, Sir Francis Bacon is credited with establishing and popularizing the “scientific method” of inquiry into natural phenomena. In stark contrast to deductive reasoning, which had dominated science since the days of Aristotle, Bacon introduced inductive methodology—testing and refining hypotheses by observing, measuring, and experimenting. An Aristotelian might logically deduce that water is necessary for life by arguing that its lack causes death. Aren’t deserts arid and lifeless? But that is really an educated guess, limited to the subjective experience of the observer and not based on any objective facts gathered about the observed. A Baconian would want to test the hypothesis by experimenting with water deprivation under different conditions, using various forms of life. The results of those experiments would lead to more exacting, and illuminating, conclusions about life’s dependency on water. https://lib-dbserver.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/thematic-maps/bacon/bacon.html

And, (in what should not be surprising for anyone who has debated Darwinists for any length of time), it turns out that Darwinian evolution itself is not based on Bacon’s Inductive form of reasoning, (which is too say that Darwin’s theory itself is not based on the scientific method), but Darwin’s theory is instead based, in large measure, on the Deductive form of reasoning that Bacon had specifically shunned because of the fallibleness of man’s fallen sinful nature. As Dr. Richard Nelson noted in his book ‘Darwin, Then and Now’, Charles Darwin, in his book ‘Origin of Species’, “selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning.”

Darwin Dilemma by Dr. Richard William Nelson The theory of biological evolution Charles Darwin argued for in the Origin of Species now presents a litany of problems for twenty-first-century evolution scientists – known as the Darwin Dilemma. The dilemma stems from the method of reasoning Darwin selected. Dilemma Origins: For investigating the laws of nature, Charles Darwin selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning. The method of reasoning is critical when investigating the secrets of nature. Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning minimizes the dogma and bias of the investigator. Inductive reasoning is the defining element of what has become known as the scientific method. Details of Darwin’s reasoning method are discussed in Darwin, Then and Now. https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/

In fact, Richard Owen, in a review of Charles Darwin’s book shortly after it was published, had found that Charles Darwin, as far as inductive methodology itself was concerned, had failed to produce any “inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’.

Darwin on the Origin of Species (1860) Reviewed by Richard Owen for Edinburg Review Excerpt: The scientific world has looked forward with great interest to the facts which Mr. Darwin might finally deem adequate to the support of his theory on this supreme question in biology, and to the course of inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’ But having now cited the chief, if not the whole, of the original observations adduced by its author in the volume now before us, our disappointment may be conceived. http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/owen_review_of_origin.html

In other words, Darwin had failed to produce any original experimental research that might support his theory for the “Origin of Species”. And on top of Richard Owen’s rather mild rebuke of Darwin for failing to use inductive methodology, Adam Sedgwick was nothing less than scathing of Darwin for deserting, “after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.” Moreover, Adam Sedgwick also called Darwin out for being deceptive in exactly what form of reasoning he was using in his book. Specifically Sedgwick scolded Darwin that “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?”

From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859 Cambridge My dear Darwin, Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have deserted – after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?- As to your grand principle – natural selection – what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.”,,, ,,, (your conclusions are not) “ever likely to be found any where but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.” Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) – one of the founders of modern geology. – The Spectator, 1860 https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

And it was not as if Darwin was ignorant of the fact that he had failed to follow Bacon’s inductive methodology when he wrote his book. Charles Darwin himself, two years prior to the publication of his book, honestly confessed to a friend that “What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.”

Charles Darwin to Asa Gray – 29 November 1857 My dear Gray, ,,, What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2176.xml

bornagain77

JVL instead of defending against my primary criticism against him that his atheistic worldview is a non-starter as far as modern science is concerned,,,

BA77 at 31: "JVL, rather than being overly concerned with whether I believe Newton was orthodox, or heterodox, I think that your personal time could be much better spent on figuring out exactly why you yourself are not overly concerned that your atheistic worldview cannot provide the necessary presuppositions that are essential for ‘doing science’ in the first place? That glaring defect in your own atheistic worldview, of not being able to ground science, is not a minor problem, but is definitely an ‘elephant in your living room’ defect which you ignore at your own peril, to the point of rendering anything else you may say about science pointless and absurd."

JVL, instead of defending against my primary criticism against his atheistic worldview, i.e. that his atheistic worldview can't possibly ground modern science in the first place, instead goes on the offense against Christianity in particular and says that "my point was an argument against Bornagain77‘s claim that without Christianity you don’t get modern science and I don’t think that is true." Well first off, although JVL may falsely claim that other worldviews may have eventually brought forth the scientific method, the fact remains that modern science suffered numerous 'stillbirths' in other ancient cultures, and modern science was only successfully brought into existence in medieval Christian Europe and in that culture alone.

The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited - July 2010 Excerpt: …as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos),,, Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a pa(n)theist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle’s works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle’s works in Latin,, If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/08/the-war-against-the-war-between-science-and-faith-revisited/

And again, although JVL will doubtlessly continue to falsely argue that some other worldview, other than Christianity, may have eventually brought forth the scientific method, the fact remains that none of those speculations about what other worldviews may have eventually done does anything to alleviate my primary criticism against him that his own atheistic worldview cannot possibly ground modern science. In fact, my criticism against his atheistic worldview goes further than that. I hold that the presuppositions held within his atheistic worldview are, in fact, antagonistic and antithetical to the practice of modern science. In the following interview about his latest book, "Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe", Dr. Stephen Meyer lists the three necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay behind the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe as such.

“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bacon’s championing of inductive reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks) – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

In my honest opinion, out of those three necessary presuppositions, (none of which atheistic materialism can possibly ground), the key and crucial presupposition that led to the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe was the third one, i.e. "Human Fallibility".

Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.”

In short, the doctrine of 'original sin' was crucial to the development of science. This is how Meyer sums it up in his book,

"Such a nuanced view of human nature implied, on the one hand, that human beings could attain insight into the workings of the natural world, but that, on the other, they were vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and prematurely jumping to conclusions. This composite view of reason—one that affirmed both its capability and fallibility—inspired confidence that the design and order of nature could be understood if scientists carefully studied the natural world, but also engendered caution about trusting human intuition, conjectures, and hypotheses unless they were carefully tested by experiment and observation." - Meyer, Stephen C.. - Return of the God Hypothesis (p. 38)

And as Emily Morales, via Peter Harrison, noted, "It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology,,, Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement",,,

Bacon’s “Enchanted Glass” – Emily Morales – December 2019 Excerpt: It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration. In this brilliant man of faith’s view, the Adamic fall left an indelible mark on the human intellect, such that in its total depravity and persistent infirmity it could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,, Recognizing then, the limitations of the human mind for revealing truth by mere logic and deductive reasoning, Bacon posited an altogether different means for knowledge acquisition: experimentation3—repeated experimentation—within the context of a scientific community (natural philosophers in his day). Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement: https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science Description: Peter Harrison provides an account of the religious foundations of scientific knowledge. He shows how the approaches to the study of nature that emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were directly informed by theological discussions about the Fall of Man and the extent to which the mind and the senses had been damaged by that primeval event. Scientific methods, he suggests, were originally devised as techniques for ameliorating the cognitive damage wrought by human sin. At its inception, modern science was conceptualized as a means of recapturing the knowledge of nature that Adam had once possessed. Contrary to a widespread view that sees science emerging in conflict with religion, Harrison argues that theological considerations were of vital importance in the framing of the scientific method. https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Man-Foundations-Science/dp/0521117291 *Peter Harrison is a former Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford and is presently Research Professor and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland. He was the 2011 Gifford Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh and holds a Senior Research Fellowship in the Ian Ramsey Centre at Oxford

Bacon’s inductive methodology, which he introduced as a check and balance against humanity’s fallen sinful nature, was a radically different form of ‘bottom up’ reasoning that was, practically speaking, a completely different form of reasoning than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks which had preceded it. A form of 'top-down' reasoning in which people “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”

“The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.” – Henry F. Schaefer III – Making Sense of Faith and Science – 23:30 minute mark https://youtu.be/C7Py_qeFW4s?t=1415 Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning – top-down vs. bottom-up – graph https://i2.wp.com/images.slideplayer.com/28/9351128/slides/slide_2.jpg Inductive reasoning Excerpt: Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. While, if the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

bornagain77

EDTA: Some things stall and some progress. Progress was made after Rome fell because a large civilization enforces some degree of tradition and uniformity which can easily retard progress. See “The Victory of Reason” by Rodney Stark, for many examples of how post-Roman times resulted in some major innovations. Sure, some things did progress in Western Europe in the medieval times. In other regions there were huge leaps forward in scientific enquiry and results. Again, my point was an argument against Bornagain77's claim that without Christianity you don't get modern science and I don't think that is true. I do not think that any faith has a claim to be the only source for the ability to do science. That just doesn't make sense and it's easy to find numerous counter examples. JVL

Relatd: Where the heck did I say that Bornagain77 says it all the time and it's his position I was arguing against. I accept that you didn't say that and that I didn't acknowledge that that wasn't your position. Galileo wanted to make a big proclamation before all the data was in. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with proclaiming preliminary results? Why should the church be able to vet scientific work especially if, as many believe, that science is a way to discover the beauty and wonder of God's design? I'm sorry, they threatened Galileo for no good reason. You’re just saying that the world does not need Christianity – at all. I'm saying Christianity has no unique claim to be the sole source of scientific validation whether in motivation or approval. it’s about making contributions across all fields of human endeavor. That bothers you. That’s all this is. The church has changed its stance a lot in the last 500 years, all to the good. I have no problem with faith of any kind as long as it doesn't try to push its views on those who don't subscribe to its tenets. And, as I have already said, during the Renaissance the church was one of the major funders of some of the finest art and architecture ever produced; albeit all matching their theology. JVL

CD & PK As I have stated here many times before my position is to default to the most reasonable explanation , so I find an intelligent creator the most reasonable position to hold. Now if you guys have a more reasonable explanation I am all ears , or is it that you just dont want to accept a creator God no matter what. Marfin

JVL, >And, arguably, once Christianity was on the ascendancy many of the skills and techniques that built Ancient Rome fell into obscurity. Like the ability to build smooth stone roads which were slippery when wet against wagon wheels. So people who actually wanted to get someplace would use the off-road path instead of the expensive Roman roads. But the roads survived a long time that way. Funny, huh? >Again, Christianity has no unique claim to foster and promote scientific thinking and pursuits. It’s just not the case. I think you've been reading very selectively again. Some things stall and some progress. Progress was made after Rome fell because a large civilization enforces some degree of tradition and uniformity which can easily retard progress. See "The Victory of Reason" by Rodney Stark, for many examples of how post-Roman times resulted in some major innovations. EDTA

JVL at 53, You mix things together with one goal in mind. Pagan culture differs from religious, non-pagan culture. The truth has spread throughout the world till now. You say, look at the past. They needed no Christianity to do great things so we don't need Christianity today. In the meantime, the Catholic Church proclaims truths and people follow her teachings. And back to the older, older, older. In the old days, BEFORE Christianity, things were great. We don't need it now since no one needed it during the older, older. Again, good for promoting atheism. However, the Church has remained, she recognizes other religious beliefs, and preaches the Gospel. But it's not all about spiritual teaching. The Church has written about evolution in great detail, for example. It's not just about 'you found something you believe in, good for you,' it's about making contributions across all fields of human endeavor. That bothers you. That's all this is. relatd

JVL at 52, "... but it’s wrong to say without Christianity we wouldn’t have science." Where the heck did I say that? It's apparent you are believing things that just aren't true to serve and promote atheism. Galileo was a problem, yes. The Church handled the situation. Galileo wanted to make a big proclamation before all the data was in. But it appears you have no knowledge of what actually happened. You're just saying that the world does not need Christianity - at all. That's a good claim to make for an atheist, but it's not true. relatd

Relatd/28

“In February 2022, the Vatican released statistics showing that in 2020 the number of Catholics in the world increased by 16 million to 1.36 billion. That means that 17.7% of the world’s population is Catholic.”

Looks like we might need another Reformation to deal with all these Papists! Seversky

Relatd: Your thinking is biased toward proving man does not need God, and that Christianity has no unique place since you think man is all. All that man needs is man, “man invents himself.” Jean-Paul Sartre. Sigh. I'm trying to show that the ability and desire to think and progress scientifically is not limited to Christian cultures. All the cultures I have cited have not been atheistic. Bringing up Muslim accomplishments is just an attempt to obscure the fact that Arabs are also the children of Abraham. I'm not trying to obscure that. But they're not Christians and folks like Bornagain77 keep telling me that without Christianity you don't get modern science. And I don't think that's true. If Christianity had died out in the 800s I think we'd still have gotten modern science at some point. Since you have not studied Christian sources, you look everywhere else. As if you are running away from something. The “terrible” truth is Christianity is the truth. It supports Intelligent Design. It created the University and commissioned great art and music. You insisting otherwise ignores all of the contributions the Church has made across every aspect of human life. Yes, I know about Christian faith and such. It didn't create the 'university'; there were examples of such things many times over before places like the Western European organisations were formed. Lots and lots of cultures commissioned great art and music as did the Christian church especially during the Renaissance. But the Christian church has no claim to be superior or primary in such matters. The claim has been made that without Christianity you don't get modern science and I think that is just not true. Your examples are an attempt to find reasons to not believe that. The Church has survived 2,000 years not by luck. Zoroastrianism is older. Judaism is older. Jainism is older. Hinduism is older. Confucius lived before Christ. Buddhism is older. Shintoism may be older. All those belief systems still exist and are practiced today. Why have they all survived? Because they feel true to some people somewhere. Some people derive spiritual sustenance and support from those beliefs. You feel in your heart of hearts that Christianity is the one true religion and it sustains you. Great, you're lucky you've found such a community. All those other systems also have their adherents who feel the same way you do. JVL

Relatd: The Catholic Church has two types of knowledge: secular and spiritual, and, unlike science, can combine the two to present a clear picture to mankind about reality. It is the vanguard and source of truth. No, that's your opinion. Look over some of the things I've posted about the House of Wisdom in Baghdad. There is still no solid information about how the pyramids were built, how the stones were set in place so precisely. But clearly they figured out how to do those things, which took centuries in some cases, without the encouragement of Christianity. I think it is very important for you to exalt man and ignore the Christian God completely. In that sense, God is not just unnecessary but an irritant. A source of distress. That man, left to his own devices, can do everything he wants and God and religion are impediments. I don't think Christianity has a unique claim to be the one and only way you get scientific thinking and progress. So many other non-Christian cultures have exhibited great abilities which required scientific-type thinking that it's clear it's not been the case that only in Western Europe in the last 2000 years has there been that kind of work done. What was this “something else”? A strong central and fairly rich and stable government. If you're always fighting to stay afloat or just barely scrabbling by you don't have the time or money to pay for pure learning and experimentation. Don’t assume I don’t know things. I know we use Arabic numerals and the contributions made by Arab scholars, but they too are children of Abraham. Your attempts to cut Christianity off of human civilization like it was a diseased arm will fail. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. After the Church decided to stop pestering people like Galileo it has made some real and significant contributions to science and certainly to culture (the Renaissance was largely funded by the church at least in Italy). But, again, the Christian church has no unique claim to be the sole or even the most important source of inspiration for scientific thinking. It's just not the case. I'm not cutting anyone off but it's wrong to say without Christianity we wouldn't have science. JVL

JVL at 49, You can repeat that over and over but it does not mean you're right. "Again, Christianity has no unique claim to foster and promote scientific thinking and pursuits. It’s just not the case." Since you have not studied Christian sources, you look everywhere else. As if you are running away from something. The "terrible" truth is Christianity is the truth. It supports Intelligent Design. It created the University and commissioned great art and music. You insisting otherwise ignores all of the contributions the Church has made across every aspect of human life. Your examples are an attempt to find reasons to not believe that. The Church has survived 2,000 years not by luck. relatd

JVL at 48, Your thinking is biased toward proving man does not need God, and that Christianity has no unique place since you think man is all. All that man needs is man, "man invents himself." Jean-Paul Sartre. Bringing up Muslim accomplishments is just an attempt to obscure the fact that Arabs are also the children of Abraham. relatd

And more: The Translation Movement lasted for two centuries and was a large contributing factor to the growth of scientific knowledge during the golden age of Arabic science. Ideas and wisdom from other cultures around the world, Greece, India, and Persia, were translated into Arabic contributing to further advances in the Islamic Empire. An important goal during this time was to create a comprehensive library that contained all of the knowledge gained throughout this movement. Advances were made in areas like mathematics, physics, astronomy, medicine, chemistry, philosophy, and engineering. The influential achievement of translation revealed to scholars in the empire to the limitless body of early knowledge in the prehistoric Greek tradition, developing the birth of primary scholarship beyond philosophy and scholarship. The engagement across arts and sciences assorts and stretches intelligence realms and brings growth to new methods of understanding. This was accomplished through academic knowledge and creative rehearsal. The House of Wisdom was known for being a space for scholarly growth and contribution which during the time greatly contributed to the Translation Movement. The Translation Movement started in this House of Wisdom and lasted for over two centuries. Over a century and a half, primarily Middle Eastern Oriental Syriac Christian scholars translated all scientific and philosophic Greek texts into Arabic language in the House of Wisdom. The translation movement at the House of Wisdom was inaugurated with the translation of Aristotle's Topics. By the time of Al-Ma'mun, translators had moved beyond Greek astrological texts, and Greek works were already in their third translations. Authors translated include: Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Euclid, Plotinus, Galen, Sushruta, Charaka, Aryabhata and Brahmagupta. Many important texts were translated during this movement including a book about the composition of medicinal drugs, a book on this mixing and the properties of simple drugs, and a book on medical matters by Pedanius Dioscorides. These, and many more translations, helped with the advancements in medicine, agriculture, finance, and engineering. Furthermore, new discoveries motivated revised translations and commentary correcting or adding to the work of ancient authors. In most cases names and terminology were changed; a prime example of this is the title of Ptolemy's Almagest, which is an Arabic modification of the original name of the work: Megale Syntaxis. Again, Christianity has no unique claim to foster and promote scientific thinking and pursuits. It's just not the case. JVL

Again from Wikipedia: The House of Wisdom existed as a part of the major Translation Movement taking place during the Abbasid Era, translating works from Greek and Syriac to Arabic, but it is unlikely that the House of Wisdom existed as the sole center of such work, as major translation efforts arose in Cairo and Damascus even earlier than the proposed establishment of the House of Wisdom. This translation movement lent momentum to a great deal of original research occurring in the Islamicate world, which had access to texts from Greek, Persian and Indian sources. The early existence of Muslims throughout time has always had a connection with the institution of libraries that came to not only be a mechanism of pursuit, but relatively a storehouse of intelligence and mental heritage for all humanity. The rise of advanced searches in mathematics, organized studies, astronomy, philosophy, and medicine began the pursuit for Arab science. This scientific leap established a demand for more and updated translations. The House of Wisdom was made possible by the consistent flow of Arab, Persian, and other scholars of the Islamicate world to Baghdad, owing to the city's position as capital of the Abbasid Caliphate. This is evidenced by the large number of scholars known to have studied in Baghdad between the 8th and 13th centuries, such as Al-Jahiz, Al-Kindi, and Al-Ghazali among others, all of whom would have contributed to a vibrant academic community in Baghdad, producing a great number of notable works, regardless of the existence of a formal academy. The fields to which scholars associated with the House of Wisdom contributed include, but are not limited to, philosophy, mathematics, medicine, astronomy, and optics. The early name of the library, Khizanat al-Hikma (literally, "Storehouse of Wisdom"), derives from its function as a place for the preservation of rare books and poetry, a primary function of the House of Wisdom until its destruction. Inside the House of Wisdom, there was a culmination of writers, translators, authors, scientists, scribes, and others would meet every day for translation, writing, conversation, reading, and dialogue. Numerous books and documents in several scientific concepts and philosophical subjects and proposals in different languages were translated in this house. Again, there was no equivalent Christian institution even though Christianity was centuries older than Islam. JVL

JVL at 44, Don't assume I don't know things. I know we use Arabic numerals and the contributions made by Arab scholars, but they too are children of Abraham. Your attempts to cut Christianity off of human civilization like it was a diseased arm will fail. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. https://www.pas.va/en/about/history.html https://www.catholic.com/video/the-myth-of-the-dark-ages relatd

JVL at 43, "No but I’m saying that we call the first 1000 years of the Christian Era the dark ages because a lot of learning and skills and techniques were largely forgotten or lost and the church didn’t get things going again on its own. It took something else." What was this "something else"? relatd

JVL at 42, I have a friend who declared to me that he was a Zoroastrian years ago. I don't know if he still is. I know all about it. But here is the key statement: "... then Christianity has no unique claim to be the one necessary source for a philosophical basis for science." The Catholic Church has two types of knowledge: secular and spiritual, and, unlike science, can combine the two to present a clear picture to mankind about reality. It is the vanguard and source of truth. You say: Look at all these other cultures who did great things in terms of art and science. I've read quite a bit about ancient technology. The water wheel to grind grain, the sun dial and what could be determined about large and elaborate buildings. There is still no solid information about how the pyramids were built, how the stones were set in place so precisely. You bring this up to say God - any version - is not necessary to create a civilization but that is not true. I think it is very important for you to exalt man and ignore the Christian God completely. In that sense, God is not just unnecessary but an irritant. A source of distress. That man, left to his own devices, can do everything he wants and God and religion are impediments. relatd

From Wikipedia: The Islamic Empire established across Persia, the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa, Iberia, and in parts of India in the 8th century made significant contributions towards mathematics. Although most Islamic texts on mathematics were written in Arabic, most of them were not written by Arabs, since much like the status of Greek in the Hellenistic world, Arabic was used as the written language of non-Arab scholars throughout the Islamic world at the time. Persians contributed to the world of Mathematics alongside Arabs. In the 9th century, the Persian mathematician Mu?ammad ibn M?s? al-Khw?rizm? wrote an important book on the Hindu–Arabic numerals and one on methods for solving equations. His book On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals, written about 825, along with the work of Al-Kindi, were instrumental in spreading Indian mathematics and Indian numerals to the West. The word algorithm is derived from the Latinization of his name, Algoritmi, and the word algebra from the title of one of his works, Al-Kit?b al-mukhta?ar f? h?s?b al-?abr wa’l-muq?bala (The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing). He gave an exhaustive explanation for the algebraic solution of quadratic equations with positive roots, and he was the first to teach algebra in an elementary form and for its own sake. He also discussed the fundamental method of "reduction" and "balancing", referring to the transposition of subtracted terms to the other side of an equation, that is, the cancellation of like terms on opposite sides of the equation. This is the operation which al-Khw?rizm? originally described as al-jabr. His algebra was also no longer concerned "with a series of problems to be resolved, but an exposition which starts with primitive terms in which the combinations must give all possible prototypes for equations, which henceforward explicitly constitute the true object of study." He also studied an equation for its own sake and "in a generic manner, insofar as it does not simply emerge in the course of solving a problem, but is specifically called on to define an infinite class of problems." In Egypt, Abu Kamil extended algebra to the set of irrational numbers, accepting square roots and fourth roots as solutions and coefficients to quadratic equations. He also developed techniques used to solve three non-linear simultaneous equations with three unknown variables. One unique feature of his works was trying to find all the possible solutions to some of his problems, including one where he found 2676 solutions. His works formed an important foundation for the development of algebra and influenced later mathematicians, such as al-Karaji and Fibonacci. Further developments in algebra were made by Al-Karaji in his treatise al-Fakhri, where he extends the methodology to incorporate integer powers and integer roots of unknown quantities. Something close to a proof by mathematical induction appears in a book written by Al-Karaji around 1000 AD, who used it to prove the binomial theorem, Pascal's triangle, and the sum of integral cubes. The historian of mathematics, F. Woepcke, praised Al-Karaji for being "the first who introduced the theory of algebraic calculus." Also in the 10th century, Abul Wafa translated the works of Diophantus into Arabic. Ibn al-Haytham was the first mathematician to derive the formula for the sum of the fourth powers, using a method that is readily generalizable for determining the general formula for the sum of any integral powers. He performed an integration in order to find the volume of a paraboloid, and was able to generalize his result for the integrals of polynomials up to the fourth degree. He thus came close to finding a general formula for the integrals of polynomials, but he was not concerned with any polynomials higher than the fourth degree. Absolutely nothing comparable was being done in Christian Europe at that time. Read that last paragraph again; not only were the Muslims translating Greek texts but one of them came up with the rudiments of calculus hundreds of years before Newton was born. JVL

Relatd: Did you read the descriptions for the books I posted at 36? It’s clear to me that Christianity, through the Catholic Church, saved ancient documents from being lost. The Church created the University. A place where expert painters, for example, could teach others. The same with other subjects. The Muslims copied and preserved many, many Greek and Roman texts actually. Look it up. The Muslims had many places of learning as did the Greeks and Romans. Hypatia, as just one example, taught at such a place in Alexandria in the 400s . .. maybe. Certainly Pythagorus had his own school of education. Or are you saying that the Church impeded progress in all areas? Cultural and scientific? No but I'm saying that we call the first 1000 years of the Christian Era the dark ages because a lot of learning and skills and techniques were largely forgotten or lost and the church didn't get things going again on its own. It took something else. Your view of the ancient world focuses on money, large building projects and warfare. I can assure you, the Catholic Church, and monks copying ancient manuscripts, brought everything forward. Who read those ancient manuscripts? Not the common folk. Not even the ruling class. Only the monks themselves. Meanwhile, in the Muslim world they had international centres of learning like Baghdad where astronomy and mathematics in particular were being developed. Algebra is a Arabic term as are the names of many stars and astronomical features and events. Our numerals are Arabic. What were the Christians doing at the same time? Not very much. Yes, they did make lots of very pretty copies of mostly Christian texts but were they sponsoring centres of learning, were they helping to develop mathematics and astronomy? Were they building large scale irrigation systems? In 762 CE, Baghdad was chosen as the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate, and became its most notable major development project. Within a short time, the city evolved into a significant cultural, commercial, and intellectual center of the Muslim world. This, in addition to housing several key academic institutions, including the House of Wisdom, as well as a multiethnic and multi-religious environment, garnered it a worldwide reputation as the "Center of Learning". JVL

Relatd: Have you read any books about the Mound Builders? My readings show that since the native people of North America lived nomadic lives, these mounds contained artifacts that imply they were discarded. So they were garbage dumps for indigenous people and no different from the massive hills built by modern people that contain broken artifacts from our current civilization. They had pretty convoluted designs if they were just for waste disposal. Have you looked at the patterns they constructed? They aren't just mounds. I'd use rubbish as well if there was plenty of it about but if I just wanted to get rid of stuff I wouldn't build complicated designs. Have you read anything about native American beliefs? It’s a bit more complicated than what you imply. All I said was that they weren't Christians. Your philosophical outlook is “Look. Here are civilizations that did great things, so God – any version – is not required. Man, by himself, does not need God.” Look up Aztec mythology. Get a copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Gods certainly dominated ancient life. Okay, if that's the case, that some kind of theology is required, then Christianity has no unique claim to be the one necessary source for a philosophical basis for science. Christianity exists in the present since it deals with things that actually happened since the foundation of the world. Most faiths make statements based on some kind of conjecture about the foundation of the world. Have you looked into Zoroastrianism? It sounds very much like Christianity in many aspects. And they all think or claim that they are dealing with things that actually happened. There are thousands of origin stories that have been proposed and believed. So, again, what special claim does Christianity have? Zoroastrians believe that there is one universal, transcendent, all-good, and uncreated supreme creator deity, Ahura Mazda, or the "Wise Lord" Zoroastrian theology includes foremost the importance of following the Threefold Path of Asha revolving around Good Thoughts, Good Words, and Good Deeds. There is also a heavy emphasis on spreading happiness, mostly through charity, and respecting the spiritual equality and duty of both men and women The religion states that active and ethical participation in life through good deeds formed from good thoughts and good words is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. This active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will and Zoroastrianism as such rejects extreme forms of asceticism and monasticism but historically has allowed for moderate expressions of these concepts. In Zoroastrian tradition, life is a temporary state in which a mortal is expected actively to participate in the continuing battle between Asha and Druj. Prior to its incarnation at the birth of the child, the urvan (soul) of an individual is still united with its fravashi (personal/higher spirit), which has existed since Ahura Mazda created the universe. Prior to the splitting off of the urvan the fravashi participates in the maintenance of creation led by Ahura Mazda. During the life of a given individual, the fravashi acts as a source of inspiration to perform good actions and as a spiritual protector. JVL

JVL at 39, Did you read the descriptions for the books I posted at 36? It's clear to me that Christianity, through the Catholic Church, saved ancient documents from being lost. The Church created the University. A place where expert painters, for example, could teach others. The same with other subjects. Or are you saying that the Church impeded progress in all areas? Cultural and scientific? Your view of the ancient world focuses on money, large building projects and warfare. I can assure you, the Catholic Church, and monks copying ancient manuscripts, brought everything forward. relatd

Jerry @ 4: "While science and logic most definitely points to a creator" I was lazy when I made my comment @ 1. I thought to have changed it to "creator" but, just posted. es58