A general discussion of debate (goals)

Hi Nuggin,I guess I have to disagree with at least part of the underlying premise: Fundamentalist scientists value facts and evidence as much as any scientists. But the fundamentalist scientist has the advantage of already having the truth as revealed through God's word in the Bible.Many of the truths that other scientists seek using empirical methods are already known to fundamentalist scientists. In fact, losing faith in the inerrancy of God's word can lead scientists astray, which is why scientists once correctly believed there was a global flood a few thousand years ago, and now they don't. Having lost their way they will have to wander aimlessly in the desert for a while before they uncover enough information to lead them back to where they started: God's word.This gives fundamentalist scientists a huge advantage, because already having the truth they can use empirical methods to discover the details of how God's word was actually fulfilled. When the rest of the scientific world finally catches up they'll find themselves where fundamentalist scientists have been all along.--Percy

No, I didn't say that, not by any means. Allow me to quote myself: "Fundamentalist scientists value facts and evidence as much as any scientists."The world is a very complicated place because it reflects the mind of our Lord, a mind of infinite complexity. Any scientist will tell you that we don't have all the answers, and what looks obvious today may not always appear so. Fundamentalist scientists work in the exact same way. If you'd like to constructively seek an understanding of the fundamentalist approach to science then I'm with you all the way, but if your inclination is to cast unsupported assertions then I cannot join you.--Percy

I was at first put off by this, but then I realized that this false conclusion isn't your fault, it's our fault. Most fundamentalists are people of faith, not science, and they're poorly equipped to defend, or even just to understand, the science that is done by fundamentalist scientists. Denial does everything to hurt one's credibility, and so I will be the first to concede that religion is fertile ground for the charlatan and the conman, and there are plenty of them out there. The Bible warns to beware of false prophets, but many sincere Christians forget that mere fellow followers of the faith can be false, too. Not everyone who proclaims himself a Christian is on the true path.So, to address your concerns, yes, fundamentalist science is based upon facts and evidence and observation just like all science. If you have any doubt of that then we can talk about specifics. Just to save you some time, Wyatt was a charlatan and a buffoon, Kent Hovind is worse, Duane Gish isn't far behind, and the Discovery Institute's eclectic approach to science is having a significant influence only because it has substantial money backing it, not because the fundamentalist scientists working under its auspices buy into such monuments to dissembling and dishonesty as the wedge document, no matter what they might say in order to retain access to one of the few significant sources of funding for fundamentalist science research. We have the truth already, but when you say conclusions you mean scientific conclusions. Scientific conclusions, i.e., theory, are not truth, and scientifically the evidence does not support the Biblical truth at this time. But as I said earlier, the mind of God is extremely complex, and his universe reflects that complexity. It may even be expecting too much of science to expect truth to emerge from simple examination and analysis of the evidence from the natural universe. In other words, evidence of the truth of the Bible may never be found, but that is a weakness of science, not of truth and God's word. And even though the evidence of truth that fundamentalist scientists seek may simply not exist, we cannot know that, and so we must labor on in the hope that it does exist. I don't think this is helpful.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.Edited by Percy, : Formatting.

I am indeed happy for you that you have found truth in following Adi Da Samraj:He apparently has a number of names or titles: The Da Avatar, Adi Da Samraj, the Ruchira Buddha and Ruchira Avatar. They means things like "descended from the Divine", "Supreme Lord" and "the Radiant, Shining, Bright One". Interesting. I suppose those who believe truth is so simple that there can be only one truth, more accurately, one expression of truth, have to believe this.The characterization of the creation/evolution debate in Message 1 simply says that creationists are scientific irrationalists unable to properly interpret evidence. This is unquestionably true of many who come here and who visit other discussion boards around the net. This is because my brothers in Christ are primarily people of faith, not science, and their meager comprehension of the nature of scientific inquiry leads them to make bold and nonsensical declarations reminiscent of Billy Sunday's ignorant, "When the Word of God says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go to hell."Unfortunately, many laboring in the name of fundamentalist science make the same mistake as the ever-present declarators of the imminent second coming by repeatedly making extremely premature claims of reconciliation of material evidence with Biblical truth. It started with Morris's ridiculous vapor canopy, extended through silly claims like hydrologic sorting, and continues today with things like Baumgardner's catastrophic plate tectonics, Humphreys' Starlight and Time ideas, and Dembski and Gitt's misguided information theories. These "creation scientists" give fundamentalist science a bad name with their premature and contradictory claims.True fundamentalist scientists know that we are not so close as those mentioned above mislead many sincere evangelicals into believing, and by this they do great damage. Being Christian and doing science does not mean turning off your brain. Staring at contradictions and declaring them not to be contradictions is not the way fundamentalist science is going to successfully portray itself as true science.True fundamentalist scientists understand this. That is why their voice is much more quiet and you don't hear from them or about them on the Internet. The time to go public is when you have legitimate results to announce and not before. In the meantime all believing Christians should remember that it is faith and salvation that are important and rest confidently in the knowledge that the current creation/evolution conundrum is merely a minor puzzle of the current era that will one day be resolved.--Percy

I find I am out of ammo. I have pursued the fundamentalist position while trying to remain rational as far as I am able, which apparently wasn't very far. Thanks for playing along.Even if the position of my last post were accepted as legitimate, the fact remains that the vast majority of creationists don't buy into it, and at the end of the day there's still the practical question of what you do when creationists march into your local school board meeting and demand representation in science classrooms alongside evolution. In other words, even if it were true that there are creationists out there who understand the nature of science and who accept that current evidence doesn't support literal Biblical positions, we still have to deal with those who don't understand science (apparently) and who will argue ad infinitum while completely ignoring any pretense to rationality or logic that the evidence supports the flood and a young earth.But I still believe the OP misrepresents the discussion, which is what I was trying to call attention to when I began my devil's advocate digression. Creationists do not believe they are altering the facts to fit their beliefs. They truly believe that the significantly relevant facts properly interpreted do support their beliefs, and attacking this position head on is a matter of defining significantly relevant and agreeing on interpretational methods, and that's an infinitely deep rat hole.I believe that the significant difference between the two sides is that creationists do not begin with hypotheses about evidence of natural phenomena, but with hypotheses about stories, and that they don't see the need for the consensus that develops out of replication. Confirmation bias, the tendency of people to have their attention hijacked by confirming evidence, often to the exclusion of disconfirming evidence, does the rest.--Percy

I hate autobiographical posts, but I'm going to try one anyway.When I was a kid I listened to The World Tomorrow on shortwave radio, a program where evangelist Garner Ted Armstrong would bring you the plain truth about today's world events and (now in bold echoey tones) THE WORLD TOMORROW! His main spiel was that prophecy had been partially fulfilled with the return of the nation of Israel to the promised land, and that it only awaited the return of Jews to Jerusalem for prophecy to be fulfilled, thereby announcing the imminent second coming. By 1967 when the Jews actually did return to Jerusalem I was no longer a listener, but I bet he made a lot of hay when that happened!He had a lot else to say, too, and as a born and raised Unitarian I hadn't had much prior exposure to his views. Unitarian Sunday school presents origin stories from many cultures, but it was my own conclusion that the origin story from the Bible was the one that was true. I still believed this at age 13, and Armstrong's radio programs confirmed this view.One of the great puzzles for me was how people knew that the stories in Genesis were true, particularly chapter one about events that took place before people existed. The answer that God had simply told people what had happened never occurred to me. I thought the information in Genesis had to have come the same way as all historical information, namely that we'd figured it out from ancient writings and archaeology.At some point I realized that Genesis was considered information handed down from on high, and without even consciously thinking it my attitude shifted to, "Oh, it's not true." Not a biggie, not even close, of course, for a Unitarian. We don't even accept the trinity, which is why many don't consider Unitarianism a Christian religion, and we're even pretty cagey (read evasive) about the divinity of Christ. Unitarian services tend to stress Jesus the man or Jesus the preacher (when he's mentioned at all) rather than Jesus the son of God.What this autobiographical digression brings me to is the point that there are many ways to approach discussion of the nature of science, and yet another one is to consider the important question of how we know what we know. Or better, how does one assure oneself that the opinions one holds have a sufficient basis in reality? How do we know the Bible stories are true? Or false? Or a mix?I think homeopathy is another excellent example for illustrating this question. That is not to say I endorse a digression into a detailed discussion of homeopathy, but it is an excellent example of something for which no one has ever been able to provide any assurance that its claims are true, and in fact studies have repeatedly found that its claims are false. The testimony of malarial victims returning from Africa after journeying there as tourists armed only with homeopathic malarial medicine should be evidence enough in itself, but scientific studies have been done proving beyond doubt its inefficacy.But how do you turn aside someone who believes in homeopathy? You can point out that the dilution is so great there could not possibly be any effect. Even incredibly potent nerve agents that can cause death at minuscule concentrations have no effect when diluted to homeopathic levels. Apparently the argument that water retains some memory of the original medicine after being diluted millions of times makes sense to many, and how do you refute the question, "How do you know water doesn't retain this memory?" So you cite the studies, but that doesn't really refute water having memory, so someone inclined in the homeopathic direction is likely to continue.So you could take the approach I mentioned earlier, asking how do you know it works? The problem with this question is that it has many affirmative answers. Homeopathic commercials and advertisements are full of testimonials, and many people know people who say it has worked for them. These kinds of testimonials are what many people base their decisions on. The medical establishment is just one dissenting voice among many positive voices, and confirmation basis keeps the attention of those inclined in the homeopathic direction focused on the positive testimonials.And so the "How do you know what you know" question has to be refined. You have to ask, "Do you have effective methods for establishing that you know what you know?" And this brings us full circle back to the nature of science: natural, repeatable, falsifiable, systematic. No other method has ever demonstrated anything close to the reliability of science in establishing confidence in what we think we know.It is the "natural" part of science that creationism ignores, and I still believe that this is the central flaw in their approach. In further support of this position I offer into evidence the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document, which makes the defeat of methodological naturalism, with emphasis on naturalism, its eventual goal. In other words, the Discovery Institute agrees that creationism's lack of foundation in observations of the natural world represents a significant departure from accepted scientific practice. Their remedy is to redefine science.--Percy