Message 63 of 64 (35462)
03-27-2003 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Joralex
03-26-2003 1:42 PM
Re: My last post on account of...
Really? So, when was the last time that you observed abiogenesis?
I am talking about evolution, not abiogenesis.
The evidence, however, which suggests that it is possible for abiogenesis to occur, is observable to everyone. No scientist would say that abiogenesis theory is anywhere near as well-supported as the theory of evolution, which explains what has happened to life once it appeared. How that life first appeared is much, mush less understood.
Your objection is a false one. Just because no one has produced life from non life doesn't mean it won't be. To point at a gap in our knowledge and claim that God is responsible has been tried throughout the history of science.
The above is a ridiculous and frequently parroted argument.
I agree that it is ridiculous.
However, you seem to be saying that the very nature of science, by definition, promotes philosophical materialism because it ignores God or the supernatural in it's tennets and how it is conducted.
What you are suggesting, then, is that science SHOULD include God and the supernatural in it's tennets and how it is conducted.
That God created the universe in no way prevents us from examining how His universe operates. Newton and Maxwell, to name just a few, had absolutely no difficulty with "God did it" and then having extremely scientifically-productive lives studying how He did it.
Exactly. So, are you now reversing your contention that science requires scientists to be materialistic naturalists?
In an earlier post I had asked a simple question : are you promoting only that evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations or are you promoting the complete naturalistic package?
Even if life started by way of abiogenesis, who are you to say that God didn't have a hand in it?
If, as I suspect, you are promoting the complete package then it is YOU that brought up the start of life from non-life - or hadn't you noticed?
Naturalists are those who believe that nature is all there is. It is not required of scientists that one hold to the philosophy of natualism in order to do good science. As evidence I will remind you that there are thousands of religious scientists (I can think of at least 6 in my husband's Neuroscience graduate department alone) who do excellent science.
S: For years, the leading creationists refused to accept speciation. It was only after years of ridicule that many decided to change their tune.
Yet another of those frequently parroted myths!
'Change' is a fact of life and for as long as I've known about creationism change has been considered a part of the natural and theological world.
Except that there are still Creationists who claim that change only happens within "kinds" (whatever that means), and that those "kinds" are fixed and unchangeable.
'Speciation' is a whole other matter because it is a term that may be (and has been) defined/interpreted differently.
Yes. Why is this a problem?
What, after all, is a 'species'? Able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring? Once this was what you'd find as the definition. But then, coyotes, wolves and dogs are different species and yet they are able to interbreed and have fertile offspring. So the definition was "modified". The ol' malleable standard, once again.
Your simplistic definition, "Able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring," is only one definition of several, it's true.
Nature is messy. Nature is complicated. That is why simplistic explanations of concepts such as "speciation" often end up needing to be expanded and clarified. Do you fault Physics for having several definitions of "energy" depending upon the situation? So, why do you fault Biology for expanding upon the concept of speciation as we learn more about it?
Ah, some of the truth finally rears its head - how nice of you.
I have never hidden this from anyone. You are new here.
I would respond to your accusation
"Accusation?" It is a fact, actually, that Christian fundamentalists have been trying to get their religion taught in science classrooms for a long time.
by saying that the issue is that ONE religion (namely, materialistic naturalism) is being forced on our children while the only other possible metaphysic (this being that naturalism is NOT a sufficient explanation for the universe) is purposely kept from our kids.
Philosophic naturalism is not required to be held by any scientist to do good science, so I fail to understand how you can say that science is religious in the least. Science ignores the supernatural because scince deals with the natural.
Education means that all possibilities are presented... indoctrination means that only one view is presented.
If you have a scienctific alternative to evolution to put forth, let's hear it. It must be falsifiable, and have positive evidence to support it, and be better supported by the evidence than evolution. I can't wait to see it!
Our kids aren't being educated, they are being indoctrinated into materialistic naturalism.
Please provide evidence from science textbooks that supports this assertion, please.
Do you believe that, along with teaching mainstream Physics and Gravitational Theory we should teach children that invisible fairies pushing down on everything causes gravity?
The only reason that people such as yourself don't see anything wrong with this is because materialistic naturalism is your religion and you are quite happy that your children are being indoctri... er... educated in that faith.
I think it is a simple thing to understand that science deals with nature and what we can detect about nature with our five senses. Religion and philosophy deal with other things. They are seperate.
S: "But would you, in theory, be willing to change your beliefs in the light of evidence?"
I can answer that truthfully - YES, I would. Here's why : one characteristic of God is truth - truth above all. To oppose any truth is, in essence, to oppose God.
I don't think you quite understand.
Would you be willing to give up your belief in God if the evidence warranted?
This having been said the question of 'evidence' needs to be understood. Allow me a simple example :
I tell you that I've been to Australia and as evidence of this I hand you some photos of the Great Barrier Reef (that I say to you I took while I was there). So, you have tangible evidence - do you "believe" my claim?
It depends on how sure I want to be. If I was a detective, I would want lots of corroborating evidence, such as flight records, picures of you in front of the Opera House, other people's eyewitness accounts, a video tape would be good, phone records from when you called from your Australian hotel, rental receipts, etc.
Why do you ask?
You shouldn't confuse an "instance" with the "totality" - 'observable phenomena' with an 'interpretative paradigm'.
Thousands and thousands of similar "instances" (observations and inferences) come together into a picture, which is what we call the Theory of Evolution.
All of science consists of "interpretive paradigms". All data is interpreted in the light of past and current research.
Every time we find a new fossil, for example, and it bears out a prediction of the theory, that is a test that the theory has survived. This has been repeated thousands and thousands of times, making the ToE one of the best-supported scientific theories in existence.
You do keep forgetting that F = ma does not in any way oppose a metaphysic (e.g., Christianity) while "our ancestors were primates" clashes directly with other metaphysics.
AHA! Now the truth comes out. You could care less about scientific evidence. You have decided that Evolution MUST be wrong because it contradicts your religion, regardless of the evidence.
Sorry, science does not operate or progress according to how it's findings clash or contradict a particular religious sect's doctrine.
That your religion can't deal with the findings of science is not science's problem. At least you Christians don't get to burn us "heretics" at the stake anymore, or arrest us for blasphemy and throw us in the stocks.
Think what you want.
Hey, you made the insinuation, not me.
If evolution bites the dust, tell me, with what does materialistic naturalism replace it with?It is clear that evolution must be retained at all cost since the alternative is simply and completely unacceptable to the faithful naturalists.
OK, let me get this straight.
It's BAD that science CHANGES, as when the ToE was altered with Punk Eek, right? It ISN'T GOOD that science changes in the light of new evidence and corrects it's mistakes, right?
Is this what you are saying?
S: "Science changes in the light of new evidence. Otherwise, we would have rejected Einstein. Do you suggest that it was wrong of us to have accepted his Relativity Theory?"
Of course not
and you're creating a strawman here.
No, I am not.
You said that it is highly suspect that the ToE ever changed (like with Punk Eek).
I pointed out that Physics changed a great deal when Newton's laws were shown to be incorrect in certain cases, and Einstein's Relativity was adopted.
To remain consistent, you would have to be reject every advancement in science simply because it is new, because this is what you are doing with evolution/the Modern Synthesis.
You're missing a huge part of the picture. While revelation is part of Christianity, any all all aspects of natural science must support this revelation - God cannot be a deceiver with His creation and a revealer with His revelation.
That's why Creation science isn't science. You ignore or twist evidence which contradicts your religion.
From the AiG Statement of Faith:
"1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
* By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
According to these statments, revelation is of primary importance, NOT evidence. This, by definition, means that any evidence which contradicts revelation may be ignored.
This is not science. It is deeply anti-science.
But then there's 'interpretation (there's that word again). If the observations are interpreted under a materialistic paradigm then these interpretations will undoubtedly support naturalism (and they do). But this is the ol' GIGO - hardly compelling.
I don't care how religions interpret scientific findings, as long as they do not try to call what they do "science".
If you are "interpreting" through the filter of what you are "supposed" to find because you looked in the Bible before you ever looked at the evidence, then you cannot possibly be doing science.
F = ma applies equally whether you're dealing with ping-pong balls, locomotives, or the moon around the earth. Different realms doesn't imply that the "laws" must be different.
Please explain how F=ma applies to your faith.
Likewise, fairness and scholarship dictates that if creationists modify certain positions as things are learned, that they be accorded the same flexibility as naturalists insist on having. Claiming that the latter are doing 'science' and that the former are engaged in 'fanatic goalpost moving' is... baloney.
What "certain positions" are you talking about? Please give examples.
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 57 by Joralex, posted 03-26-2003 1:42 PM|| ||Joralex has not yet responded|