|
|
|
|
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/1/2009 8:43:24 PM | | Hey, ho Verzen...way back about thirty thousand words, rather a gnat than a defensive demented, frail, done, 99 year old. But you are right. I should go to the hospital and contract swine flu, flesh-eating disease, ummm...staph infection.....blah and blah. Do not be so in rapture with Science. As I said...it is finite. You did not answer the important part. What is the genesis?? And don't give some black hole excuse. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/1/2009 9:13:27 PM | The genesis? A myth or story that was meant to explain what could not be explained.
If you're asking what created everything and started the whole process, than I do not know is an acceptable answer. It is much more preferable than making shit up. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/1/2009 9:39:38 PM | Honestly, scorpio, you're a master of the "if you can't dazzle 'em" approach.
So tell me this...how does anything about how science got it wrong in the past have anything to do with our current level of understanding?
I agree that it should not be explored, but on the basis that not all science will result in good results for humanity. But it's still technically science.
Nothing "technical" about it. Eugenics is not science. If you actually do believe it is, then that is a sad reflection on your character. It certainly is reflective of missteps by supposedly "learned" men of the past, but so what? Again, how oh how does that reflect on now, except as an important understanding of the history of science?
And to be accurate...it's not the science that can result in "bad" things, it's human use of that science. Still not a question of "faith" though. Just human foible.
You were the one to ask for qualification that the Ptolemaic theory was based on huge amounts of data and yet still turned out to be wrong.
Did Ptolemy have Keck? Or even a decent hand-held telescope? If not, this point is pointless. Which was my point.
If those assumptions have all been proved, then it's a far cry from faith. But then they're not assumptions either. If they are assumptions, they haven't been proved, and if they haven't been proved, then you need faith to believe in them AND the things that are built on them.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
Gotta love good rhetoric.
That pretty much sums up the problem. Theists must be nuts. Theists have faith, ergo, faith cannot be something that sane people like you have. You believe in science. Ergo, science cannot involve faith.
Love how you assume what I must be saying. Just because someone believes in God doesn't make me question their sanity. That's just you putting words in my mouth. Again, relying on ad hominem. Doesn't prove your argument. And have I EVER said you were crazy for being a theist? Show me the quote. To quote you, "put up or shut up."
Oh, and speaking of arrogant presumption...
Let's be honest. You tried to argue that theists use the "god of the gaps" theory, because you've heard it before....
Are you done presuming to speak for me and what I think, know and believe? Now would be a VERY good time to stop.
Every scientific discipline has a "past." So what? The past of a scientific discipline doesn't dictate the future of it. It SHOULDN'T. But it often does.
Right. I'd love to see someone try and bring back eugenics as "legitimate" science. I think most scientists would consider that a black day indeed. But do please give examples.
Let me give you a simple example of the point I'm making. Relativity. Now we could simply sit here and say that is the end of the line for theories of the universe in the macro scale. It's been sufficiently observed to be accepted, time and again. Ah, but there's QT. It operates at the exact opposite end of the scale and is, by all accounts of those who actual DO the science to be true. And I've done the double slit so yes, I have observed it.
Well, we can sit on our laurels and say, 'nope, that's all there is to it.' Or, we can start to wonder if there is something wrong. The first requires "faith" in that it's enough to say that a thing is a certain way and leave it at that. It works. It's fine. The second approach is inherently skeptical. Skepticism is the exact antithesis of faith. And that is the scientific approach. The same approach that has been brought forward to astronomy, cosmology, genetics, physics, biology and...of course...evolution.
Just because you're not comfortable having apes in the very, very extended family tree, doesn't make it not true. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/1/2009 10:04:01 PM | | stargazer, etc....do you mean that scientists that have spiritual beliefs do not exist because science is " the exact antithesis of faith"? Not true. There are scientists that do indeed have spiritual faith. May not be the dreaded organized religion type but yes, faith is in their province. Scientists need to continue to do their exploring.. but they also need to admit that they are not......here it comes again.....GOD. Or the end of the debate. Frankly, most apes are much more civil and intelligent and on the trajectory they should be on...than.... most human beings. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/2/2009 12:45:07 AM |
It's not that you're not allowed to...it's that it's complete racist BS and is completely indefensible. I trust you do not hold such primitive and idiotic views. If you do...well then, that pretty much kills any credibility you have, as far as I'm concerned.
Let me ask you something. Do you hold such a strong view on this because you have collected enough empirical scientific evidence that has led you to this conclusion, or are you perhaps stating what is socially acceptable out of fear of being judged? I would assume based on your position in this thread that you must have researched this rather thoroughly and collected a solid amount of scientific data to back up your view. Otherwise, of course, you’re merely operating on faith.
scorpiomover - I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts on subjects like these. I find them interesting and thought provoking. And the fact that you seem to routinely get met with quite a bit of caustic resistance says something to me. You seem to have become quite adept at poking holes in the facade of conventional scientific wisdom. Very interesting indeed.
Also, I think this statement right here is probably the most true thing I’ve ever read from anyone the entire time I’ve been on this board…..
Things are not always as you were told. Question everything, especially what you were told by your teachers and lecturers.
The smoke and mirrors that keep people believing in certain ways are truly something to behold once you become aware that they are there. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/2/2009 7:34:33 AM |
stargazer, etc....do you mean that scientists that have spiritual beliefs do not exist because science is " the exact antithesis of faith"? Not true. There are scientists that do indeed have spiritual faith.
Not what I'm saying. There are quite a few scientists who have spiritual beliefs and actively practice them. However, when it comes to the pursuit of science, again, faith is antithesis, does and can play no part.
It is this "faith in science" that creationists use to try and disparage the science of evolution by insinuating in some way that science is the "god" of the scientist. They then go on to insist that there is no real "proof" and that it's "only a theory, anyway." Nonsense! And, if you find a scientist who thinks he's "God," well, I 'd suggest you get him or her a nice canvas smoking jacket.
Let me ask you something. Do you hold such a strong view on this because you have collected enough empirical scientific evidence that has led you to this conclusion, or are you perhaps stating what is socially acceptable out of fear of being judged?
No, it's because I find such views ethically and morally repugnant as anyone who calls themselves "civilized" should.
Otherwise, of course, you’re merely operating on faith.
Call it what you want. You call it "faith," I call it "ethics." Doesn't make it legitimate science as good ol' scorpy seems to be indicating. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/3/2009 1:24:38 AM |
No, it's because I find such views ethically and morally repugnant as anyone who calls themselves "civilized" should.
Maybe so. But that doesn't mean they are not scientifically possible. It only means you have chosen not to research them and have formed a rigid conclusion anyway based on.... well...... not science.
Call it what you want. You call it "faith," I call it "ethics." Doesn't make it legitimate science as good ol' scorpy seems to be indicating.
You do realize this is the exact same argument Christians use when clinging to Creationism and refusing to acknowledge evolution, right? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/3/2009 9:12:30 AM | RE Msg: 453 by stargazer1000:
Honestly, scorpio, you're a master of the "if you can't dazzle 'em" approach. Thanks. But I really don't see how I'm dazzling anyone. You're not dazzled by what I'm saying, and neither is anyone else who disagrees with me. So how exactly am I "dazzling" anyone?
So tell me this...how does anything about how science got it wrong in the past have anything to do with our current level of understanding? A lot. Take aspirin. About 6 months to 2 years ago, there was a report that ALL people should take aspirin, and not just people with a heart condition. Now there's a report that it's seriously harmful for people to take aspirin if they don't have a heart condition. This worries me, because I don't have a diagnosed heart condition, and I was thinking that I should take aspirin every day. But now I found if I'd listened to current scientific knowledge, that I'd be seriously damaging my health. What do I, and most others who are very interested in the latest scientific developments, do? Do we take aspirin, and hope that science won't do a U-turn on it? Do we not take aspirin, and hope that there won't be ANOTHER scientific study that will disprove the one that says it's harmful to those without a pre-existing heart condition? What do we tell our kids? What do we tell other people? Do we say that we can trust science on everything, but not when it comes to aspirin?
What do we do? Seriously? How can we trust to follow science, when in the near future, we might be told we've been harming ourselves for listening to it?
Nothing "technical" about it. Eugenics is not science. If you actually do believe it is, then that is a sad reflection on your character. It certainly is reflective of missteps by supposedly "learned" men of the past, but so what? It is science. It qualifies as science by approaching the whole subject in a thoroughly scientific manner. It's no different than scientific research into torture, or making killer viruses. They're all science. Science is amoral. It has no views on any subject. But we are moral. We don't do everything we can. We can kill. We can steal. We just say it's wrong to. The same is true of science. We can do all sorts of things in science. But some of that will be wrong to pursue.
Again, how oh how does that reflect on now, except as an important understanding of the history of science? For starters, that if we did it before, then someone will probably try to do it again. After all, we know that "history repeats itself". It's a warning for the future.
And to be accurate...it's not the science that can result in "bad" things, it's human use of that science. Still not a question of "faith" though. Just human foible. Yes, selling arms doesn't kill people. Using them does. Does that mean it's OK to sell arms indiscriminately? No. But when we publish a scientific paper, it can be read indiscriminately, especially if you are willing to subscribe to scientific journals.
That's not an attack on the subject of science. Science is amoral. That's a criticism of the way science is conducted in our society, with little or no consideration of its moral impact.
Did Ptolemy have Keck? Or even a decent hand-held telescope? If not, this point is pointless. Which was my point. So, let me get this straight. Because Newton didn't have a PC that could calculate his results to 100 decimal places, that we should ignore everything he said? Einstein didn't have any such gadgets either. Einstein certainly never had Keck. Should we just ignore everything Einstein said?
Gadgets help in the discovery of science. They allow us to get more accurate data, and more of it. As long as we have some data to begin with, though, we can still get results, because Cantor's theorem tells us that with n facts, we have 2^n possible conclusions. So really, we don't always need better gadgets to get data that will lead us to better conclusions. We often just need to do more experiments.
There is a very good example of this. Richard Feynman was fond of saying that all of quantum mechanics can be gleaned from carefully thinking through the implications of the double-slit experiment, and that's something you can do with 2 light sources, a piece of card with 2 holes cut in, a tray filled with water, and a room with the windows covered to block out the light. It's something you could have done 2000 years ago. Yet you could come to all the major conclusions of quantum mechanics, using an experiment with the simplest of technology.
If those assumptions have all been proved, then it's a far cry from faith. But then they're not assumptions either. If they are assumptions, they haven't been proved, and if they haven't been proved, then you need faith to believe in them AND the things that are built on them. "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Gotta love good rhetoric.
That pretty much sums up the problem. Theists must be nuts. Theists have faith, ergo, faith cannot be something that sane people like you have. You believe in science. Ergo, science cannot involve faith. Love how you assume what I must be saying. Just because someone believes in God doesn't make me question their sanity. That's just you putting words in my mouth. Again, relying on ad hominem. Doesn't prove your argument. And have I EVER said you were crazy for being a theist? Show me the quote. To quote you, "put up or shut up."
Yes, you might not personally believe theists are automatically dumb. But you're speaking about a viewpoint that is based on that assumption.
Let's be honest. You tried to argue that theists use the "god of the gaps" theory, because you've heard it before.... Are you done presuming to speak for me and what I think, know and believe? Now would be a VERY good time to stop.
I'd rather not conclude the last suggestion is correct.
Every scientific discipline has a "past." So what? The past of a scientific discipline doesn't dictate the future of it. It SHOULDN'T. But it often does. Right. I'd love to see someone try and bring back eugenics as "legitimate" science. I think most scientists would consider that a black day indeed. But do please give examples.
Further, scientists can do a test on your DNA, and tell what diseases you are likely to get. Insurance companies love this, because they are hoping to use this in the future, to deny cover for major operations due to an existing heart condition. Is selecting whether to cover someone for a life-saving operation because of their genetics, that different to stopping them giving birth to children who are likely to develop such a condition? Is that eugenics?
Even in the UK, there are calls for refusing life-saving operations to obese people and smokers, even though there is a lot of evidence that a lot of your genes determine if you have an addictive personality that will likely be a smoker, and there are genes that far increase the likelihood of you developing obesity far beyond that. Is refusing a life-saving operation because of a condition that is likely caused by their genetics, that different to eugenics?
Yes, we find eugenics repugnant. But the desire to manufacture humanity, by selecting which people to save, with life-giving operations, with the insurance to afford life-giving operations, and with not aborting them at the foetal stage, on the basis of their genetics, is still with us. From what has been occurring in the last 20 years, it seems to me that this demand is growing.
Let me give you a simple example of the point I'm making. Relativity. Now we could simply sit here and say that is the end of the line for theories of the universe in the macro scale. It's been sufficiently observed to be accepted, time and again. Ah, but there's QT. It operates at the exact opposite end of the scale and is, by all accounts of those who actual DO the science to be true. And I've done the double slit so yes, I have observed it.
Well, we can sit on our laurels and say, 'nope, that's all there is to it.' Or, we can start to wonder if there is something wrong. The first requires "faith" in that it's enough to say that a thing is a certain way and leave it at that. It works. It's fine. The second approach is inherently skeptical. No-one says to a dyslexic kid who finds it hard to learn to read and write, that it's "enough" that he can talk and listen, that he can communicate what he wants to say and understands what others say. "It's enough" is not a valid argument. You have to qualify it. WHY is it "enough"? What is it about our current state, that means that if we DON'T investigate this matter, that our lives will not benefit from such efforts?
Conversely, to say that "it's not enough", equally has to be questioned. One has to ask: WHY is it "not enough"? What benefits will we get from investigations into the matter at hand?
The above considerations are NOT why we do or don't stop investigating a particular situation. We investigate things to discover their benefits. We have to be careful to choose approaches that will take into account the possible harm. We have to be careful to limit desires to abort foetuses just because they will not grow up to be another Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie. We have to be careful to control the desire to make better and better drugs, to test them carefully, to avoid getting cases like the children of pregnant women taking thalidomide. But "it's enough" or "it's not enough" are not decent arguments to continue investigation or to stop investigating. We need good reasons as to WHY "it's enough", and WHY "it's not enough".
However, if it turns out that a particular investigation is NOT fruitful, that answers are just not forthcoming, then it's often better to just try a different approach, or to just leave off the investigation, and to choose to investigate more subjects that yield more useful results.
In the last 30 years alone, many thousands of incredibly smart people have been working on marrying QT and relativity. Many theories have been proposed. But few have gained much more than a hypothesis. The Higgs boson has been looked for time and again, and every time, we've failed to find even one example. String theory has been proposed many times. But we're still without any proof of it. Most people would give up after you've tried to do something a dozen times and failed. When incredibly smart people have been failing for 30 years, that's normally the time to say it's impossible, or at least impossible at the moment, and to move on to other things that are far more productive.
It's the first approach that is the truly faithless one. It speaks to common sense. As Einstein said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". That's the current status quo in trying to marry QT and relativity, and get some physical confirmation of such attempts. We keep trying to marry the two, and we keep getting nothing. Common sense tells us to give up, and look into more productive work, to leave it to some future generation.
But, to continue trying to unify QT and relativity anyway, and to believe that we will find a solution, no matter how unlikely, requires great faith, that either humans can solve any puzzle, no matter how impossible it seems, within a reasonable amount of time, or that there is an unseen being that will somehow choose to reveal the answers to all the puzzles of the universe to us, because that is what it wants us to do, to understand the universe. Either way, you have to have incredible faith to keep trying, when all seems lost, and the puzzle seems insoluble.
Skepticism is the exact antithesis of faith. And that is the scientific approach. Scepticism is the doubter of science, the one who hears a theory, and says "maybe it's WRONG." If scepticism is the scientific approach, then those who are sceptics of the scientific theory of evolution, are taking the scientific approach.
The same approach that has been brought forward to astronomy, cosmology, genetics, physics, biology and...of course...evolution. All these were the result of great faith, that even though the greatest minds of the last 2000 years were stumped by all these, that we could find something they could not. It is the Jenners and the Einsteins of this world that made the biggest discoveries, and it is they who had the faith to continue in their research, when all of their eminent scientific colleagues said they were nuts to even try.
Just because you're not comfortable having apes in the very, very extended family tree, doesn't make it not true. I get that you might think this is true, if it makes you uncomfortable. I get that it might make you uncomfortable to be related to apes, if you think that apes are far less capable than humans. But according to evolution, they have been around for 50-55 million years. Homo sapiens, by comparison, have been around for only 2.5 million years, one 1/20th of that. Yet, both are in serious danger of extinction, if scientists are to be believed. I'd be far more uncomfortable saying I'm related to humans, than I would be saying I'm related to some species that continued to thrive for 20 times their lifespan, and would probably continue so, if not for a sub-sub-species of them that are trying to wipe their own relatives out, along with themselves. A drive to kill yourself and your family is not exactly what I'd call admirable. But if I had to say I was related to such a murderous species, I'd much rather say that I was also related to less suicidal and less homicidal species as well. At least that way, I could say that me and my friends have some genetic tendencies of not wiping ourselves out.
But I don't care if I have apes in my family tree. There are enough stupidly prejudiced people that I'm related to in the very, very extended family tree, that make earthworms seem smart by comparison. I don't really have a problem in saying that I'm related to apes. I think it would RAISE my family standing up quite a few notches. I'd LOVE to be distantly related to c0ckroaches, as they are said to survive almost anything, even nuclear war. But just because I think it would be a good advantage to be related to everything from apes to c0ckroaches, from scorpions and ants, doesn't make it true either. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/6/2009 11:01:48 AM | Why do you think a large amount of creationists believe that to accept science and reasoning as the truth is to be something also considered based on "faith"?
Who knows, but at very least you have to trust your own powers of reason, faith in your own powers of thought. And before you say "it's obvious my thought processes are trustworthy", insane people often think the same thing.
At any rate, what creationists and many people get confused about is the fact the scientific method is not about learning "truth." It's a pragmatic tool to find "what works" and "what works better than something else." (More specifically, devising hypotheses that make specific and distinguishing predictions that are subject to falsification.) And though humans within the scientific community are just as prone to becoming dogmatic as other humans with regards to their pet theories, theories are always tentative.
Good theories can be trusted because they have have useful explanatory power and generate verifiable and falsifiable predictions. In short, we tend to trust them because they demonstrably work, and because humans have an inductive psychological bias.
| |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/6/2009 11:38:38 AM | The term "creationism" was coined and is primarily used in reference to young Earth creationism. Intelligent design was coined in order to make "creationism" seem more pallatable and scientific and distance some of the more moderate views from YEC, though it doesn't actually differ in major ways. ID simply omits mentioning some of the YEC views of many of its proponents.
Not so. Creationists start with a religious text and attempt to find evidence to fit their predetermined conclusions. ID starts with the empirical evidence and asserts that natural processes as we understand them are not a sufficient explanation and are attempting to demonstrate why with mathematics and empirical experiments.
So far, at best, ID is a negative argument against random variations + natural selection as being a sufficient cause for all the biological objects that exist. The ID proponents may be dead wrong (I personally think they have far to go), but the approach is not the same as the scriptural creationists.
BTW, even though Philip Johnson and his fellow travelers had an agenda to break the back of "darwinism" in the public schools, the current ID movement is composed of a diverse group of people from YECs all the way to atheists, and most them of are not Young Earth creationists. Most of the ones I've encountered accept common descent, including Dembski and Behe. I'm not going to carry their water for them, but to put them in the same category as the Scripture First creationists is patently incorrect. Their arguments may be wrong, but they are not arguing from a position that takes the Bible as presumptively true.) | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/6/2009 8:09:56 PM | | Your "Not so" ignores the actual crux of my statement, which is contained in the first two of the three statements. "Intelligent Design" is a phrase coined specifically to sanitize creationism and make it sound scientific and non-religious, regardless of who follows it now. That's the sort of bait and switch that keeps the irrational set laughing all the way to the bank - they present a face which others will buy into even though they wouldn't have agreed under to previous facades. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/6/2009 10:33:04 PM | Intelligent Design" is a phrase coined specifically to sanitize creationism and make it sound scientific and non-religious, regardless of who follows it now.
Whatever the original intent of the person who coined the term (Philip Johnson possibly), the current reality is that "Intelligent Design" has nothing to do with creationism in the sense of Biblical/scriptural dogmatism seeking evidence. It starts from the evidence and the proponents make arguments using process control theory, information theory, and experimental evidence. Where is the Bible pushing here? In order for your "bait and switch" accusation to be true the luminaries would have to be pushing the Bible or some other scriptural dogma after people accept the "bait."
Who is doing this? Is Dembski, Behe and Meyer arguing this way? How about Mike Gene? Hell, offer up anyone at the Discovery Institute. I'm not a creationist, I follow this movement closely and I don't see what you're claiming. If they were I'd be on the front row shouting it down. Personal motives don't count. Show me where a leading ID proponent is using ID arguments as some sort of justification to accept Biblical creationist theology, particularly the literal six-day creation story.
Nope. So far, ID is basically just a negative argument against the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis as a sufficient explanation for all the biological objects in nature. It is not a prop for literal Biblical creationism.
| |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/7/2009 2:02:16 AM |
Where is the Bible pushing here? In order for your "bait and switch" accusation to be true the luminaries would have to be pushing the Bible or some other scriptural dogma after people accept the "bait."
Who is doing this? Is Dembski, Behe and Meyer arguing this way? How about Mike Gene? Hell, offer up anyone at the Discovery Institute. I'm not a creationist, I follow this movement closely and I don't see what you're claiming. If they were I'd be on the front row shouting it down. Personal motives don't count. Show me where a leading ID proponent is using ID arguments as some sort of justification to accept Biblical creationist theology
I don't think you need to go any further than the sixth page of The Wedge to establish the "bait and switch" tactics of ID and the Discovery Institute in particular:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
For those who don't feel like downloading, this is essentially a policy statement and action plan from DI. The religious goals, in particular Christian ones, are actually STATED. Science is not the goal. Supporting creationist religious goals is, partly by co-opting and corrupting science. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/7/2009 6:36:07 AM |
I don't think you need to go any further than the sixth page of The Wedge to establish the "bait and switch" tactics of ID and the Discovery Institute in particular:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
Thank you, for this link. I have not had a chance to read the The Wedge in its entirety.
I have a friend, who vehemently opposes ID, and its push to be taught in schools. Only having a surface idea of what ID was, andwhat I knew, I thought I agreed with it. I found his anathema irrational, which was odd, since he is normally such a reasonable guy. So...I asked him about it. His reply, "You really need to do a little research, given your views and on separation of church and state."
And so I did.
I read several news articles, including, the controversy around "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District". I have read articles and research about the Discovery Institute.
Creationists start with a religious text and attempt to find evidence to fit their predetermined conclusions. ID starts with the empirical evidence and asserts that natural processes as we understand them are not a sufficient explanation and are attempting to demonstrate why with mathematics and empirical experiments.
There is no empirical evidence to support ID. The Discovery Institute is researching evidence to prove ID. Maybe they should actually have empirical evidence to support ID that is accepted by the science community, before it is taught in school as a science.
ID proponents still have a religious and political agenda. They are just learning how to word their refutations in a way that doesn't look like it. To deny that that is their agenda, is to stick your head in the sand...unless it is your agenda too. If so, then i can see why you would support... | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/7/2009 7:46:42 AM |
Hell, offer up anyone at the Discovery Institute. I'm not a creationist, I follow this movement closely and I don't see what you're claiming. If they were I'd be on the front row shouting it down. Personal motives don't count. Show me where a leading ID proponent is using ID arguments as some sort of justification to accept Biblical creationist theology, particularly the literal six-day creation story. Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools....Philip E. Johnson.
Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Philip E. Johnson | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/7/2009 9:23:17 AM | | There is a trap in the question; one does not 'believe in' science, because it does not require it. Science isn't a belief system, it's a method; a process by which we examine reality. We do so by evaluating the evidence, by testing theories about why or how things are the way they are and by investigating whether there may be an alternative view which explains things better. All of this is the opposite of faith. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/7/2009 9:26:21 AM | | I don't think they believe it at all. They advance it as an argument because it weakens the scientific approach and brings it down to a level on which you can easily refute it. If everything is based on belief, there is no way to distinguish one view from another and thus all become equally valid. If however you have to test your assertions, creationism rapidly loses ground. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/7/2009 10:42:05 AM | two points...
one ... you are assuming that its scientists that are being talked about [wrong] there are scientists involved but in the general public ... they need faith to believe in science.
as for the creationist question of the OP's well you guys got good answers and then try to say what's wrong with them but the wrong is in trying to correct an anwer that is correct even though the premis in the thinking may be wrong.
The question was .... why do they think that way? .....
not what is the right way to think.
two ... as for this ID crap ... here is a good rebuttal as to why it should not be given the creedance you give science in schools... by a physics professor who explains it better than anyone in this thread has so far.
Intelligent Design
Humans,****oaches, and the Laws of Physics
Copyright © 1997 by Victor J. Stenger
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
something all IDers and creationists should read. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/7/2009 11:16:46 AM |
... you are assuming that its scientists that are being talked about [wrong] there are scientists involved but in the general public ... they need faith to believe in science.
Good point; I stand corrected.
I would maintain though (although the more I read these forums the more doubtful I become) that a member of the general public has the ability to examine the evidence too and reach their own conclusions, and that isn't a question of faith, but of rationality.
Nobody needs faith to believe in science, they need a critical faculty and the will to exercise it. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/7/2009 2:40:28 PM | | hi... if science agrees with Gods Word then it is good science, if it goes against Gods Word it is counterfeit set out solely to dishonour God... if science states something that does not go against Gods Word because Gods Word does not mention it then knock yourself out, even share it with me as a Christian, I will not debate it with you I would enjoy the possibilities... when I know without any doubt whatsoever that science has been wrong many many times in the past I would be daft NOT to question/doubt science..I would not be the person that I am if I did not toss out a theory that went against Gods Word, God is never wrong... blessings | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/11/2009 9:11:11 PM | I don't think you need to go any further than the sixth page of The Wedge to establish the "bait and switch" tactics of ID and the Discovery Institute in particular:
It doesn't matter what the motives were of the creators of the Wedge. They don't control ID any more than rabid anti-religion atheist Richard Dawkins controls evolutionary biology. What matters is what the people actually involved in ID are doing. The movement has outgrown the intent of the originators, such as Phillip Johnson, and the arguments must be engaged on their merits rather than simple-minded hand-waving as you are doing, as I already explained above. Your last comment changes nothing. I encourage any interested parties, for example, to visit Mike Gene's web site Design Matrix and see if he qualifies as a Discovery Institute "wedger." Likewise for several folks (such as myself) who post on Telic Thoughts. Mike Behe is not wedger either despite his affiliation with the DI.
Quite simply, you don't know what you're talking about.
| |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/12/2009 1:12:31 PM |
Humans,****oaches, and the Laws of Physics
Copyright © 1997 by Victor J. Stenger
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html I had a look at that. It's the same sort of meaningless drivel that I used to hear from people who argued that murder is a good thing, using similar lines of reasoning. It's based on a whole load of assumptions that are not only never proved, they are never stated, and that are actually contradicted by the scientific laws of the universe. Not that such arguments might not exist. Just not this sort of argument. It only is believed by lesser minds who listen to others who sound good, without ever trying to prove for themselves if these things are true.
Ask yourself: would you believe this if a mental patient wrote it? If not, then you're not convinced of the arguments. You're convinced that this physics professor cannot be wrong. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/12/2009 1:38:41 PM |
if science agrees with Gods Word then it is good science, if it goes against Gods Word it is counterfeit set out solely to dishonour God
This sounds an awful lot like that Christian Science crap I've seen on TV in which someone reads some nonsense rhetorical crap from a book, then switches to the bible, then back to that same book...talking a lot while saying absolutely nothing of substance.
What the devout fail to understand is that the science you decry as being "against God's word" is actually in keeping with reality since, in order to be real science, has to be observable and so would be the consequence of your "God's" "creation." So, by not believing in science, you are actually rejecting the "handiwork" of the God you believe in and, even worse, using your own preconceived notions to set limits on your God. In essence, you are telling "God" how the universe is supposed to go.
(Not saying any God created the universe...just pointing out the hypocrisy here.) | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 11/12/2009 1:56:36 PM |
I had a look at that. It's the same sort of meaningless drivel that I used to hear from people who argued that murder is a good thing, using similar lines of reasoning. It's based on a whole load of assumptions that are not only never proved, they are never stated, and that are actually contradicted by the scientific laws of the universe.
Oh please...do give us lesser minds an example, please.
Ask yourself: would you believe this if a mental patient wrote it? If not, then you're not convinced of the arguments.
Please! He's a physics professor which means he brings more to the table than your average mental patient (unless said mental patient is a physics professor). He's not talking about space aliens talking to him, or the voice of God...he's talking about physics and the weakness of the argument that "God" had to be involved in the "creation" of the universe.
Don't shoot the messenger just because the message challenges your world view.
You're convinced that this physics professor cannot be wrong. Of course he can. Which isn't the point of the article. It's his view of why ID is indefensible and unnecessary for explaining the existence of the universe. | |
|
|
| Page 19 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
