Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8950 total)
28 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,179 Year: 22,215/19,786 Month: 778/1,834 Week: 278/500 Day: 41/65 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
subbie
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 436 of 485 (571891)
08-02-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by marc9000
08-02-2010 8:51 PM


Re: The search for meaning
Speculation about events of millions of years ago...

No, studying the evidence left by events from millions of years ago to see what we can learn from that evidence.

...ruling out anything but naturalism for all of reality – in what is supposed to be an objective, publicly required/established subject.

Where in the world did you ever get the notion that science rules out anything but naturalism? Science doesn't say everything is the product of naturalistic processes (although some scientists might think so as a matter of personal belief). Science simply restricts itself to the study of natural processes, because that's the only thing that we can observe repeatably.

You really don't know anything about science, do you?

Not peer reviewed you say? Why do you insist on peer review – where do you see peer review as something that the public specifies, or even seriously considers?

...

As Thomas Sowell put into words very concisely; “People who are very aware that they have more knowledge than the average person are often very unaware that they do not have one-tenth of the knowledge of all the average persons put together.”

That's why peer review. Any scientist can make a mistake. Usually unintentionally, but occasionally intentionally. Peer review decreases the odds that a mistake of either kind will be missed. Findings must be reviewed by other people, knowledgeable in the field, who are specifically looking for mistakes, trying to prove that something is wrong. That's why peer review.

And what the public relies on is quite irrelevant. Most of the public know very little about science and how it's conducted. A great many people may think that they do, but much of what the public thinks about science is wrong. I'm sure you'll think that sounds elite or something, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

"Origin Of Species" wasn't peer reviewed.

Science has come a long way in 150 years, and believe it or not, On the Origin of Species has been effectively peer reviewed millions of times since its publication.

Peer review seems to be for science what the courts are to Democrats – the judge/jury said this, so that trumps everything that a much larger group of people thinks.

Wonderful little bit of demagoguery there, Abbot. But your insecurity notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is that those who are educated in the law and in science actually do know more about those fields than those who aren't. It's really rather silly for you to suggest otherwise. And your apparent position that we should rely on millions of uneducated opinions over a several thousand educated ones seems staggeringly irrational to me.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by marc9000, posted 08-02-2010 8:51 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2010 8:27 PM subbie has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 437 of 485 (571905)
08-02-2010 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by marc9000
08-02-2010 9:13 PM


Re: The search for meaning
I don’t think it’s all that unusual for a person to hold personal opinions, yet not insist that only those opinions be used to structure or maintain how a society operates.

Then tell that to the Texas school board. A number of members there want to force pseudoscience (creationism) into the science curriculum.
Sure they have a right to have an opinion on creationism, but should not be able to force that view down anyone else's throat.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by marc9000, posted 08-02-2010 9:13 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2010 11:12 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded
 Message 447 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2010 8:30 PM bluescat48 has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 448 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 438 of 485 (571908)
08-02-2010 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by bluescat48
08-02-2010 11:03 PM


Re: The search for meaning
I don’t think it’s all that unusual for a person to hold personal opinions, yet not insist that only those opinions be used to structure or maintain how a society operates.

Then tell that to the Texas school board. A number of members there want to force pseudoscience (creationism) into the science curriculum.
Sure they have a right to have an opinion on creationism, but should not be able to force that view down anyone else's throat.

Forgive him, Caesar – he is a barbarian and considers that the customs of his tribe are the laws of nature.

G.B.Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by bluescat48, posted 08-02-2010 11:03 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


(1)
Message 439 of 485 (571909)
08-02-2010 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by marc9000
08-02-2010 8:51 PM


Thomas Sowell
As Thomas Sowell put into words very concisely; “People who are very aware that they have more knowledge than the average person are often very unaware that they do not have one-tenth of the knowledge of all the average persons put together.”

Well, that depends on the subject, doesn't it? If you put together the knowledge of a million people with an average knowledge of quantum mechanics, you wouldn't get Schrodinger's equation, would you?

Or if you put together the knowledge of a million people with an average knowledge of how to read Babylonian cuneiform (modal average: no knowledge whatsoever) it wouldn't add up to the knowledge of someone who'd actually studied cuneiform.

There are cases when Sowell's point applies: see, for example, James Surowiecki's The Wisdom Of Crowds. But it often breaks down when it comes to technical subjects such as the sciences.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by marc9000, posted 08-02-2010 8:51 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 672 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 440 of 485 (571969)
08-03-2010 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 433 by marc9000
08-02-2010 9:13 PM


Re: The search for meaning
Thanks for your very thoughtful responses, marc. Just a few things to pursue further...

marc9000 writes:

... I do believe the US is capable of being a pluralistic society. I’m like anyone else, I have less fear of my own worldview destroying liberty than I do of another worldview destroying liberty.

When you say "another worldview", do you mean "any other worldview that is different from my own", or do you mean "some particular worldview(s) that I could name"? That is, given a fairly complete list of worldviews different from your own (i.e. the ones attested to exist in our pluralistic society), do they all pose equal risk of "destroying liberty", or is it rather that some are especially bad and others are merely benign in their differences from your own worldview?

(In the latter case, if that applies to you, it would be interesting to consider what separates the "benign" differences from the "risky" ones. I'm not asking for an enumeration; I'd just be curious about the kinds of differences you consider threatening vs. non-threatening.)

Admittedly, the piece that I quoted above is something that I might be prone to say myself, despite the obvious dilemma that it poses ("pluralism is okay, but..."). For my part, I do draw distinctions among the various worldviews that differ from my own: Some seek to promote ignorance and promulgate dishonesty by denying observed facts and disallowing objective investigation, and these are a significant threat to liberty, because liberty cannot survive in an atmosphere of ignorance and dishonesty. There are others that allow and support refinements of supernatural beliefs in acceptance of facts and objectivity, or that at least accept peaceful coexistence with such an approach, and these are not a threat to liberty.

Humans are the only species on the planet that organize societies to the extent that certain humans main function is to focus only on that organization. From policemen to politicians, and so many others in between.

... including clergy. Especially clergy. In the U.S., at least, police and politicians are supposed to restrict their focus to purely secular issues. (Police in America normally succeed at this extremely well; many politicians tend to be less successful, and this is a problem.) But the clergy, and the active evangelical congregations, such as Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses, have it as their main (if not sole) explicit duty to intrude physically on other people with regard to pushing particular worldviews and beliefs.

I know of no society, present or past, with liberty equal to the US, that was founded and operated only by naturalistic reasoning.

And yet it appears you do not acknowledge that the great extent of liberty we have in the US exists by virtue of the secular foundations -- the "naturalistic reasoning" -- built into our Constitution. It is crucially the separation of church from state, of religious authority from political governance, that assures our liberty. But that's a topic for another thread (or a few).

I think it’s because a supernatural being can have motives and goals that are more deep and noble than humans can understand. The meaning stays constant and doesn’t change.

This is a concise distillation of the central paradox in every theistic conception of "meaning", or "morality", or whatever else you want to attribute to a supernatural being. If we can't understand the motives and goals, how can we possibly assert that the "meaning" doesn't change? How can we possibly assert that we even have a clue what the "meaning" is?

If we can't really know for sure -- and we really can't, because we're talking about the supernatural -- then it just comes down to the word of this priest vs. the word of that preacher (vs. the word of some mullah vs. the word of some other mystic vs. whatever Joe Sixpack makes up in his own mind vs. ... vs. ... vs. ... ad infinitum).

It is exactly this paradox that makes religious schism an inescapable outcome of religious belief. It reveals the inherent lie that is being told every time some theist expounds on God's True Intent™. And every time some other theist expounds on some other incompatible version of God's True Intent™, it's just another lie, competing for the attention of gullible minds. If these are not lies, they are hallucinations or rationalizations or just bare assertions. Whatever they are, they have nothing substantial to back them up. They all have equal "authority", which is to say, as much authority as can be enforced by whatever group has adopted a given fantasy.

And the people who accept such fantasies are the ones who are still having trouble understanding what it means to apply objectivity to every aspect of their lives; in the most extreme (fundamentalist) cases, it's as if objective thought does not exist for them (and so cannot exist, period). Hence the title of this thread.

The major difference between us is that your position can only be held and promoted by appeal to religious belief or dogma, whereas mine can find confirmation in real-world observations.

That accusation can go both ways. I can find confirmation in real world observations in un-scientific things, like the history (predictability and un-predictability) of human nature. Yours can appeal to humanistic dogma, such as new understandings of the world that require political overhauls, like dismantling capitalism to control global warming, or move toward a one-world government.

Nice little sample of Tea Party diatribe there -- I knew I could count on you for that -- and like all Tea Party stuff, debunking it is child's play. Obviously, the entrepreneurs who are working on commercially viable wind and solar technology do not see a conflict between capitalism and addressing the very real problems of global warming -- they still are not getting the level of subsidies and indulgences that have been the routine gift to oil companies for several decades. And are you really saying that you are opposed to things like the UN, IMF, WTO, etc, that try to solve international problems through international cooperation? I've never seen a good explanation as to why, exactly, they pose a threat, or what makes them worse than the alternative (which would be having no cooperation and leaving international problems unsolved).

In any case, I really have no dogmas that require political overhaul. As a US citizen, I'm fine with using our current secular system of national government in order to address the societal and environmental problems we face -- many of which can only be solved by international effort. This obviously has to include working on international treaties, but doesn't include stuff like invading some country just to topple its dumb-ass dictator and take over its oil wells.

As for your "real world observations in un-scientific things", that's a bit of a muddle; if you're drawing conclusions without keeping close track of what you've actually seen -- and if you aren't being careful (as any honest scientist has to be) about avoiding biased sampling and invalid logic -- then your "confirmation" is likely to be false.

For example, you might assert the superiority of Christianity with regard to "family values" by pointing to the divorce rate among non-Christians, but if you fail to notice that the divorce rates among Christians and non-Christians are actually about the same (or maybe it's a little higher among Christians), then you've clearly made a mistake.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor grammar repair


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by marc9000, posted 08-02-2010 9:13 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2010 8:48 PM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 441 of 485 (572196)
08-04-2010 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by GDR
07-30-2010 9:06 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
GDR writes:

Right now the answers that they are coming up with appear to point to something that is not of the material world.

Except that the answers don't point to anything like that. I'm still wondering how, specifically, you think the answers are pointing to something "not of the material world". I'm still wondering because you have (still) yet to explain yourself beyond merely asserting this single statement.

In order to support my statement, I'll re-post this message of mine that you may have missed:

This time, with onions (Message 292)

But the evidence does not point this way.
You've already said exactly where the evidence points.
The evidence is pointing at an incorrect application of our existing understanding to this physical aspect of the world.

There is absolutely no evidence or "pointing" in any direction even related to something called "the supernatural".

Let's take some examples:
1 - You always hang your keys in the same spot on the wall in your house on a regular basis
2 - One day you go to leave and reach for your keys
3 - The keys are not there
***this doesn't make any sense***
Now:
A - Is this an indication that something supernatural is going on?
B - Or is this an indication that your understanding of the current physical world is incorrect?

In application to recent (last few hundred years) mathematics:
1 - NP (Newtonion Physics) always explained the aspects of our universe that we dealt with on a regular basis
2 - One day we tried to use NP to explain an additional aspect of our universe (extremely small-scale motion)
3 - The answer turned out to include a singularity (ie. some number went to infinity)
***this didn't make any sense***
Now:
A - Was this an indication that something supernatural was going on?
B - Or was this an indication that our understanding of the (then) current physical world was incorrect?

In application to this situation:
1 - GR (General Relativity) and QM (Quantum Mechanics) always explain the aspects of our universe that we deal with on a regular basis
2 - One day we try to use GR and QM to explain an additional aspect of our universe (the beginnings of our universe)
3 - The answer turns out to include a singularity (ie. some number goes to infinity)
***this doesn't make any sense***
Now:
A - Is this an indication that something supernatural is going on?
B - Or is this an indication that our understanding of the current physical world is incorrect?

If A is incorrect for all the other scenarios where we run into confusion between the reality of the physical world and our current understanding, why do you think it should be considered this time?

What, specifically, is pointing towards the supernatural? It can't simply be that it doesn't make sense, as these examples show... that is only pointing to our current understanding being incorrect.

From "this is incorrect" to "this has to be supernatural" is a really big jump. A really big jump that requires you to add a bit more clarification in your evidence than "I think it has to be this way". Why do you think it has to be this way? Why do you think it has to be the supernatural, when we've been in this situation many, many times in the past and it's never been the supernatural ever before?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by GDR, posted 07-30-2010 9:06 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by GDR, posted 08-04-2010 8:15 PM Stile has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5052
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 442 of 485 (572228)
08-04-2010 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Stile
08-04-2010 1:55 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Stile writes:

The evidence is pointing at an incorrect application of our existing understanding to this physical aspect of the world.

I disagree. Right now the answer just about always comes to infinity. Again, as Greene points out that doesn't make sense as we don't experience infinity in a 4 dimensional world. There are two ways of looking at that. One way, as you point out, is that the application is incorrect and that may very well be the case. The other is that the application is correct and that it points to something other than a purely natural solution. As it stands now it points to something other than a natural solution although that could easily change with new data tomorrow.

Stile writes:

From "this is incorrect" to "this has to be supernatural" is a really big jump. A really big jump that requires you to add a bit more clarification in your evidence than "I think it has to be this way". Why do you think it has to be this way? Why do you think it has to be the supernatural, when we've been in this situation many, many times in the past and it's never been the supernatural ever before

I am not claiming that "this has to be supernatural". I am merely saying that as of now the evidence points beyond the natural, although I agree it may just be because at this point we don't have enough information. A final conclusion can't be made one way or the other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Stile, posted 08-04-2010 1:55 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by jar, posted 08-04-2010 8:20 PM GDR has responded
 Message 459 by Stile, posted 08-05-2010 10:44 AM GDR has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1039
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 443 of 485 (572229)
08-04-2010 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by crashfrog
08-02-2010 9:58 PM


Re: The search for meaning
Atheists very much do. Many of them, like myself, come by atheism after a period of believing much of the same things you do.

And the first steps in that process are when Christianity is compromised with Darwinism. Once it’s weakened, atheism is “come by”. As Bluejay has indicated, it’s happening to him, and we see it’s already happened to you. It confirms what is said about the dangers of Christian compromise with evolution.

marc9000 writes:

I know of no evidence that suggests that Darwin was keenly interested in geology or astronomy, so it makes sense that he would have been uncertain about evidence for an old earth.


I guess, but I still don't see any of your evidence that Darwin hopped off the Beagle and immediately put together a cabal of atheist geologists. I'm not sure there were any, or that Darwin would have needed any. The geological consensus against the 6000-year-old Earth was developed primarily by Christians.

After doing a little checking it’s clear that Darwin was influenced by the earlier geological adventures of James Hutton and Charles Lyell, so I stand corrected about Darwin’s uncertainty about that. Hutton was a deist, and there doesn’t seem to be much information on Lyell’s religion. They were primary to the consensus of an old earth, and to label them Christians is quite a stretch.

If you're so old, that only makes it more important for you to start getting caught up on the science if you'd like to have an informed opinion about the origin of life. I'm not saying "enroll in classes" but there's a significant weight of scientific expertise available at this board - students and professors who would like nothing better than to ease the burden of your incredible scientific ignorance.

In many places on the internet, there is significant weight of Christian expertise on Christianity, and historian expertise on US History. Most students and scientists on this board that make a sport of insulting me show incredible ignorance of those two subjects. They give little indication that they’d like that burden eased. They really should get caught up in those things if they’d like to have an informed opinion on just how much all evidence actually supports their atheistic worldview.

Maybe instead of spinning insulting yarns about how they're all involved in a conspiracy to murder dissenting voices, you might ask them some questions? Questions are the beginning of
knowledge.

A relevant question would probably be – was the evolutionists superior thought process that is the subject of this thread a prevalent thing in the writings of the books I listed in message 432? But it can be difficult to learn when one, or a dozen, questionees get angry.

Why not just come out and say that you fundamentally reject the very idea of expertise?

In politics, I reject it, because there is no one superior area of expertise that trumps all others. Why do you reject expertise in Christianity and American History?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by crashfrog, posted 08-02-2010 9:58 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by Granny Magda, posted 08-04-2010 8:49 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 453 by GDR, posted 08-04-2010 8:51 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 475 by crashfrog, posted 08-08-2010 10:25 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31775
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 444 of 485 (572230)
08-04-2010 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by GDR
08-04-2010 8:15 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
GDR writes:

I am not claiming that "this has to be supernatural". I am merely saying that as of now the evidence points beyond the natural, although I agree it may just be because at this point we don't have enough information. A final conclusion can't be made one way or the other.

And so the answer is NOT Super-natural but simply "Place in Unknown Cause" folder.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by GDR, posted 08-04-2010 8:15 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by GDR, posted 08-04-2010 8:27 PM jar has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5052
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 445 of 485 (572231)
08-04-2010 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by jar
08-04-2010 8:20 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
jar writes:

And so the answer is NOT Super-natural but simply "Place in Unknown Cause" folder.

You can put it wherever you want. The current evidence points to something beyond the natural. That evidence may or may not be correct or complete.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by jar, posted 08-04-2010 8:20 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by Percy, posted 08-05-2010 8:04 AM GDR has responded
 Message 458 by Blue Jay, posted 08-05-2010 10:00 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1039
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 446 of 485 (572232)
08-04-2010 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by subbie
08-02-2010 10:00 PM


Re: The search for meaning
Where in the world did you ever get the notion that science rules out anything but naturalism?

When it studies its way right past other considerations that might clash with its naturalistic "findings". By not knowing when to stop as it crosses over from science to metaphysics.

Science doesn't say everything is the product of naturalistic processes (although some scientists might think so as a matter of personal belief).

And they’re the ones who write the textbooks, the ones who do the peer review, the ones who imply that everything is the product of naturalistic processes.

Science simply restricts itself to the study of natural processes, because that's the only thing that we can observe repeatably.

Sometimes it “simply restricts itself” and sometimes it’s a weapon against religion. Often in a matter of only a few paragraphs, it can seamlessly switch itself back and forth between those two things, if the atheist scientist is clever enough.

You really don't know anything about science, do you?

Since many in science (with their superior thinking skills) deny the slippery ways that they use the words "science" and "evolution", I know enough to question their atheistic proclamations about nature.

That's why peer review. Any scientist can make a mistake. Usually unintentionally, but occasionally intentionally. Peer review decreases the odds that a mistake of either kind will be missed. Findings must be reviewed by other people, knowledgeable in the field, who are specifically looking for mistakes, trying to prove that something is wrong. That's why peer review.

If Christianity had peer review, would you respect it like scientific peer review? You know, people who actually know the nature of God, the nature of Satan, the exact reasons the 66 book Bible is so widely accepted. How about American History peer review? Assertions about “separation of church and state” being central to US foundings would hit the trash can faster than a scientific peer review of a Michael Behe research paper. And that’s fast!

Wonderful little bit of demagoguery there, Abbot. But your insecurity notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is that those who are educated in the law and in science actually do know more about those fields than those who aren't. It's really rather silly for you to suggest otherwise. And your apparent position that we should rely on millions of uneducated opinions over a several thousand educated ones seems staggeringly irrational to me.

What do you think about those who are educated in Christianity? Is it equally silly for scientists to write books to cheapen it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by subbie, posted 08-02-2010 10:00 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by jar, posted 08-04-2010 8:35 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 449 by subbie, posted 08-04-2010 8:39 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 450 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2010 8:44 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 466 by Theodoric, posted 08-05-2010 9:35 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1039
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 447 of 485 (572233)
08-04-2010 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by bluescat48
08-02-2010 11:03 PM


Re: The search for meaning
marc9000 writes:

I don’t think it’s all that unusual for a person to hold personal opinions, yet not insist that only those opinions be used to structure or maintain how a society operates.

Then tell that to the Texas school board. A number of members there want to force pseudoscience (creationism) into the science curriculum.

That’s a political process. A “board” isn’t necessarily forwarding personal opinions, they’re supposed to attempt to represent a group of people who elected them. Their attempt to force “pseudoscience creationism into the science curriculum” may have been only an attempt to counter an earlier forcing of pseudoscience (atheism) that’s already established into the science curriculum.

Sure they have a right to have an opinion on creationism, but should not be able to force that view down anyone else's throat.

As a counter measure to atheism being forced down throats, it should be subject to the political process, at local levels.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by bluescat48, posted 08-02-2010 11:03 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by bluescat48, posted 08-04-2010 9:50 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31775
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 448 of 485 (572234)
08-04-2010 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by marc9000
08-04-2010 8:27 PM


Re: The search for meaning
marc9000 writes:

If Christianity had peer review, would you respect it like scientific peer review?

Then they would call out clergy that continue to preach falsehoods like a Biblical Flood, that the earth is not billions of years old, evolution is not a fact.

If they cull out the frauds in the clergy maybe fewer folk would abandon the faith.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2010 8:27 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 449 of 485 (572235)
08-04-2010 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by marc9000
08-04-2010 8:27 PM


Re: The search for meaning
When it studies its way right past other considerations that might clash with its naturalistic "findings". By not knowing when to stop as it crosses over from science to metaphysics.

...

And they’re the ones who write the textbooks, the ones who do the peer review, the ones who imply that everything is the product of naturalistic processes.

...

Sometimes it “simply restricts itself” and sometimes it’s a weapon against religion. Often in a matter of only a few paragraphs, it can seamlessly switch itself back and forth between those two things, if the atheist scientist is clever enough.

I'd be absolutely delighted if you were to produce evidence to support these claims.

Assertions about “separation of church and state” being central to US foundings would hit the trash can faster than a scientific peer review of a Michael Behe research paper.

I'm fairly confident that I know more about separation of church and state than you do since it was about one half of my ConLaw II class in law school. So I'm not even going to ask you to defend that little bit of hysteria.

What do you think about those who are educated in Christianity? Is it equally silly for scientists to write books to cheapen it?

You seem to be equating a naturalistic criticism of Christianity with a religious-based criticism of science. You're doing a marvelous job of proving the accuracy of the topic of this thread. Well done, pal.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2010 8:27 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 448 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 450 of 485 (572236)
08-04-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by marc9000
08-04-2010 8:27 PM


Re: The search for meaning
If Christianity had peer review, would you respect it like scientific peer review?

Depends on whether it was nothing more than apologetics. That's the most likely kind of peer review that most religions would willingly accept.

The record for religions actually subjecting their beliefs to a reality test is pretty poor.

Personally, I think real evaluation against empirical evidence is the last thing most religions want to see.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2010 8:27 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019