|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: DarkStar's Manifesto: Is It Science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
In this post, DarkStar outlines his manifesto for expanding human knowledge in general, and about the origin of life in particular:
DarkStar writes: My Position on the Origin of LifeNeither the theory of evolution, nor the theory of intelligent design are capable of adequately explaining the origin of life. Science alone serves it's purpose. Religion alone serves it's purpose. Neither is sufficient on it's own merits to reveal all unknowns. Absolutistic attitudes and beliefs, regardless of the realm in which they are held, are defeatest in nature and are contrary to the promotion of the greater good necessary for the betterment of our society in general, and of our species as a whole. A blending of social, philosophical, theological, and empirical evidence should be the chosen path of any individual whose mission is the revealing of heretofore undiscovered knowledge, wisdom, and truth. Differing opinions should be embraced, not viewed as a necessity for continual division of thoughts, ideas, concepts, and positions. To choose a lessor path is to accept the the inevitable limitation of what can be discovered. Close-mindedness serves only individual needs and beliefs, giving no regard to the opinions and beliefs of others. Eagerness to acknowledge and investigate new concepts, and new ideas should be the cornerstone of any intelligent species. Science serves a purpose, religion serves a purpose, secular awareness serves a purpose, social responsibility serves a purpose, but all must acknowledge their limitations and learn to work within their own framework. None, in and of itself, will ever be sufficient enough to reveal all of the unknowns. Society is better served by the integration of these individual concepts. These concepts, working in conjunction, one to the others, gives mankind the greatest possibility of uncovering the unknowns. None should be viewed at the only course to travel. None can ever be totally independant of the others and expect to reveal the ultimate truth, for alone they all lead to unanswerable questions, but together they lead to a fuller understanding of our species, and of the origin and purpose of life. Elitism is best left to aristocrats and royalty. It should receive no foothold in the scientific, religious, or social realms when truth is the ultimate goal. Cooperation is a tool of opportunity that receives far too little utilization. Absolutism is a tool that should be forever discarded, as it serves only the individual needs, giving no regard to the greater good of our society in general, or of our species as a whole. I acknowledge design, so evident throughout the universe. Whether that design is the result of random chance or divine intervention is not a question for me to answer, nor is it a question that, in my humble opinion, either science or religion is capable of answering on it's own. Perhaps neither ever will but greater are the chances of mankind revealing the unknowns when science and religion are viewed as partners and not adversaries, acknowledging their own limitations, recognizing each others strengths, and agree to walk hand in hand through the myriad of unknowns that are before us. Only then can we honestly say that our ultimate goal is a greater understanding of the knowledge, wisdom, and truth that lay before us, as we surrender no concern to where the path may lead. DarkStar I have no idea why we should accept the conclusions DarkStar proposes, aside from the fact that DarkStar tells us to. First off, he doesn't seem to be talking about the same sort of 'unknowns' throughout the post. Is he talking about the origin of life on Earth, or design in the Universe, or the unknown in its entirety? He asserts that some mixture of science and religion is necessary to find out the answers to all these questions, but he never describes how these concepts are supposed to be fused without doing damage to both. "Society is better served by the integration of these individual concepts," he says, but never describes how they are to be integrated. Elsewhere, DarkStar has attacked evolutionary theory as a religion based solely on metaphysical assumptions and not on evidence. Perhaps he could offer some evidence to support his position that science and religion need to walk hand in hand to solve the mysteries of the Universe. From my perspective, it seems science has solved many of the mysteries of the natural world. However, religion hasn't really been able to solve supernatural mysteries or present a methodology for investigating spiritual unknowns to anyone's satisfaction. regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: So what we have are tools that are meant to answer separate questions. Science is the tool used to explain the physical, natural world. Philosophy/religion is a tool used to explain the metaphysical, moral, and spiritual questions that man asks. They are mutually exclusive. I would argue that society should use all of the tools, but they can not be combined into one. For example, if we want to make a new pesticide to kill off a mosquito outbreak, do we meditate or apply empirical science? If we want to judge someone's actions, do we use science or socieatl/moral standards steeped in philosophy and religion? If we want to calculate the orbit of a satellite, do we pray about it and hope for a vision, or do we use mathematical formula derived from scientific theories devoid of religious content? The question is this. What separates evolution and the origin of life from the rest of the sciences? We can reconstruct a crime from the evidence left behind, yet we are supposed to read the bible for reconstructing biological evidence left in the rocks. We can use DNA to determine paternity, but we can't use DNA to determine common ancestory. It seems that creationists and flavors thereof want to reap the benefits of keeping religion out of science unless it disagrees with their religion. Science is good enough to double their lifespan, make non-stick pots, make non-religious theories about orbiting planets, but not good enough to describe species diversity. Science has never been improved, and very possibly ruined, by the inclusion of religious precepts. It wasn't until society decided to separate religion and science that we finally saw the heights to which human invention could reach. I would argue that the last 100 years has seen the removal of religion from science, and at the same time we also observe the greatest increase in technological discoveries and the greatest increase in solid theories that have withstood prolonged testing. Darkstar argues that science would benefit, but the data argues otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Loudmouth writes, on the subject of anti-evolutionists:
quote:Yeah, why isn't he railing against the 'religion' of computer science? DarkStar, it seems, just makes an assertion and expects everyone to accept it. After all, if we don't take his word, we're just closed-minded elitists. It's obvious he's not scientifically conversant enough to understand the factual basis of evolution (remember, he says the fossil record doesn't show the development of life of Earth), but he's not philosophically adept enough to understand the principle of methodological naturalism. regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So what we have are tools that are meant to answer separate questions. Science is the tool used to explain the physical, natural world. Philosophy/religion is a tool used to explain the metaphysical, moral, and spiritual questions that man asks. Well, not that I think it was your intent, but I think that it's a mistake to pretend these questions are of equivalent importance. I mean, I could say (you'll pardon me for paraphrasing you):
quote: Ok, science and the gamebooks are two different tools, yes. But like the gamebooks, religion is a tool for answering questions about made-up stuff. Getting back to DS's manifesto, what on Earth would be the utility of trying to synthesize science and made-up stuff? (Maybe some great books and crappy movies, I guess.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: The use of such a synthesis is to attempt to bolster ones faith with empirical evidence provided by methodological naturalism. Such an approach both demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of methodological naturalism and simultaneously exposes a very weak faith. I can understand that if your best friend gets killed in a freak accident, you would want some explanation for why him, why now, why at all that science will not provide and faith or philosophy might provide the comfort needed to get past the event. I can even understand peoples inherent fear of death. But I have little understanding for people who claim to base their faith on empirical evidence which includes such ridiculous "facts" as the bible says so or design is self evident. As Loudmouth pointed out, if you want to test a hypothesis in the lab, no matter how trivial it may be, in what way does inclusion of religion benefit or even address the hypothesis? If I want to construct a vector that will cause overexpression of the prion protein in human neuronal cell lines, what benefit am I going to get by including religion? What does a paternity test based on microsatellite loci gain by including god/gods/the supernatural? You might pray that you are not the father after that night of drinking tequila and vague memories of a girl in fishnet stockings who said she only takes cash, but the test and the science that went into developing the test are purely based on MN with no incorporation of anything mythical. Darkstar claims we need to include mythology in science to get at the truth but studiously avoids mentioning a single case where this has benefited scientific discovery or how it would even in theory benefit science at all. It is highly likely that his avoidance represents his inability to do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Darkstar claims we need to include mythology in science to get at the truth but studiously avoids mentioning a single case where this has benefited scientific discovery or how it would even in theory benefit science at all. I'm not sure his point is that we have to. I rather think he's referring to some kind of truth beyond science. How you could know such a truth is simply beyond me. There's absolutely no difference between theological or spiritual inquiry into the universe and making shit up. They're exactly the same thing. What sort of "truth" we would get from adding what we make up to what we've found out about the universe is something I simply don't understand, and something DS has given no examples of. But yeah. I agree with you. When you take science and add made-up shit, you don't get more truth, you get less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: From this quote I am assuming that he believes that the synthesis is a prerequisite. It is not far off from Willowtree's assertion that one can do science as long as one thanks god for it afterwards (paraphrasing his arguments) though neither of these guys bothers to explain how that in any way shape or form improves the conclusions drawn from methodological naturalism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I would think it obvious that anyone who believes in any form of creation should consider understanding that creation to the fullest possible extent would be like reading the book written by the hand of god and not something filtered through some poor translation.
But that would be me, heh. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: But that "made-up stuff" is more important than science to some people. Whether or not I agree with their philosophy, I can't ignore the importance of religion in the lives of a large section of society. I am an agnostic, so to me it seems foolish, but that is a judgement that I make for myself and not for other people (I know you feel the same way, but for the sake of the debate). Just because we might find something unimportant doesn't mean that it shouldn't be important to other people.
quote: Absolutely none. The only synthesis I see within science now is ethics. There are certain ethics that scientists follow when doing human or animal experimentation. I would classify them as areligious, but concern for animal suffering and human consent are often thought of as christian or religious precepts. I think that society and religion has a place in science, not in methodology but rather in the ethical practice of science. There are huge grey areas, and I tend towards a more a more "liberal" practice of science, but I fully realize that we should also consider the feelings of the society that is both benefitting and financially supporting the research. Secular as well as religious voices should be heard, so I support studies on homosexuallity, embryonic stem cell research (I actually use fetal cell lines in my work), and I also support animal studies that include subject euthanasia. However, everything we do has to be passed by an animal protocol board that includes both PhD's and laypeople from the community.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reina Inactive Member |
Here are a couple bits of scientific data. Enjoy !!
404: Content Not Found | The Tech Interactive ... you have to keep pressing "next" to see the following page.Also, DNA - Wikipedia To me, this is awesome (the amazing amounts of perfectly-detailed information contained in so tiny a space). Then, something quite new for me, and perhaps for some here:Page not found – Creation In The Crossfire ... and Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates The second does not address the "design" issue directly, but it is an interesting bit of information, just the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
To me, this is awesome (the amazing amounts of perfectly-detailed information contained in so tiny a space). I don't believe that there's anything that could be considered "perfect" about the genome. As a whole it's an example of being just good enough. A quartz crystal represents "perfect" ordering of minerals. Is that evidence that God designs quartz crystals?
Then, something quite new for me, and perhaps for some here: You'll find that paleochroic halos are new to nobody here, nor are they new to geologists. As a refutation of evolutionary timelines they've been substantially debunked. You can read the refuttal here:
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted The main problem with the halos is that there's no evidence that they're actually the result of polonium decay and not substantially longer-lived isotopes like radon or uranium. Anyway this is all off-topic in this thread. If you cared to discuss either of these examples in greater depth you should open new threads in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
It is against forum guidelines to use bare links. You should use them in support of something stated in your own words. Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: The only problem is that you must first believe that there is a designer before you can conclude that there is a designer. There are physical laws that allow the accumulation of information in the DNA molecule that are observable and measurable, no faith needed. These physical laws are natural selection and mutation. IOW, a designer is neither been evidenced nor is one necessary. This is why there shouldn't be a mix between religion (design inferrence) and science. If religion is allowed to enter, then every kind of non-evidenced mechanism can be inserted that doesn't require evidence, only faith. This is why science was created, to get rid of "snake-oil salesmen" who try to sell their cause using unsubstantiated claims, or even worse unsubstantiatable claims. This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 06-30-2004 12:05 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024