Teaching the Truth in Schools

Martin,We have all been brainwashed to accept that whatever is scientifically effective is what should be taught as science. Sorry, your dogma doesn't produce the results ours does.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Martin,Contrary to what Phillip "Half Truth" Johnson would have you believe, methodological naturalism actually does leave that possibility open, and is not merely institutionalized atheism run amok. Things that are undetectable, unverifiable, and untestable today (and therefore qualify as 'supernatural') may become detectable in the future due to advances in scientific tools. How would Pasteur have proved his points without Van Leeuwenhoek's microscope to aid him? Who could empirically detect atomic radiation prior to the invention of the Geiger counter?However, there's a difference between anticipating advances in technology and assuming that supernatural forces are present with no justification. Scientific methodology demands that mechanisms be testable and verifiable, and the successes of science are due to this constraint. You can call it dogma if you'd like, but your point would be more forceful if you could point to scientific progress that we owe to assuming the presence of supernatural forces. You won't find an example anywhere in Johnson's writings, believe me.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Martin,You live in a fantasy world. You expect us to agree that everything you 'believe' is supported by evidence, even though you're unwilling or unable to present any of this evidence. Similarly, you expect everyone on this site to forget everything he or she has ever learned about science merely because you produce a statement like The large body of "evidence" that is intended to bolster the idea of evolutionism is itself largely theoretical out of thin air.Please give us all a little more credit for our education and intelligence. We're not all brainwashed minions of the vast evolutionist atheistic conspiracy. We understand the methodology of naturalistic science has produced results. We know that belief in the supernatural is an individual philosophical position, but that it has never aided science.If you'd like to convince us that naturalism constitutes bias, you'll have to show us the leaps in scientific understanding that supernaturalism has generated. Otherwise, you're on thin ice.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Martin,Your lack of a realistic basis in the history of science is appalling. If you expect people here to nod in agreement when you produce a howler like We also know that belief in metaphysical naturalistic philosophy is an individual position, but that it has never aided science, you're absolutely deluded. Who's 'we,' Martin? This is absolutely priceless. Evidently you expect us to forget that for literally millennia, all knowledge was the domain of supernaturalists and religious orders. The only knowledge that is still relevant from these Dark Ages is that which wasn't transformed by Biblical literalism into pure garbage. You also expect us to forget that the revolutionary scientific programs that brought the world out of this ignorance were formulated by believers who nonetheless adhered to the naturalistic assumption: Newton's physics and Pasteur's biology. Maybe you should take a look at an introductory primer to the history of science so you can put these things into context. If you'd like to persist in your ignorance, please don't pretend we're all doing the same.Again, your insistence that naturalism constitutes bias is groundless. You want us to believe that supernaturalism is on equal footing with the naturalistic methodology that has given us all the significant knowledge we currently possess concerning natural phenomena. But we know better.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

From Finding Darwin's God:"It once was possible to point to a humble seed and invoke the attention of the Almighty as the only possible explanation for how such an ordinary object could grow into a mighty tree. Today we look into the seed itself, examine the program of gene expression that begins at germination, and seek our answers in the rich complexities of molecular biology and biochemistry. This does not mean that we have reduced the seedling to mere chemistry or physics. It means instead that we have elevated our understanding to appreciate the living plant in a way that lends wonder and delight to our view of nature."------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Martin,As others have pointed out, Kenneth Miller is a Brown University researcher who exemplifies a not-so-rare phenomenon in the scientific community: a devout believer who has a realistic outlook on what science is and isn't. I highly recommend Finding Darwin's God if you're interested in understanding evolutionary biology from the standpoint of a Christian.What will it take to convince you that mature faith doesn't demand that believers rant against a crude caricature of scientific researchers like your 'nats?' The fact that Miller (and countless other believers who have no problem reconciling their belief and their scientific understanding) can do successful research alongside nonbelievers is a sign that your accusations of naturalistic brainwashing are completely false. Certainly creationism can't claim to be as objective a template for scientific research if it demands that everyone subscribe to the tenets of fundamentalist Christianity.Contrary to your claim, naturalism most certainly is synonymous with science. It is the foundation of scientific methodology, merely because nothing else works. Scientists understand this, whether they are believers or not.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 12-10-2003]

Martin,All your nonsense merely constitutes a desperate attempt on your part to convince yourself that you're right. We see a lot of it around here. Words don't mean much, Martin, we need to see scientific results that support your point. If naturalism is not the only methodology that has been successful in the lab, you should be able to prove to us that supernaturalism has contributed to scientific progress. It's an empty claim indeed that we should 'think about all the progress that could have been made' with supernaturalism if you've never given us an example of supernatural science!Your only stab at an explanation of your position only disproved your point: you made a claim that the ancient Hebrews knew about germs. Microorganisms aren't supernatural, Martin. Perhaps your scientific ignorance is influencing your opinions. In any case, I don't accept that the ancient Israelites were privy to any secret medical knowledge to which the more advanced Egyptians weren't. I haven't been able to locate any info on the Egyptians using dung for medicine. Perhaps you could post a link to this obviously pertinent information.This is your problem, Martin: you assert that naturalism is bias simply because we need to give supernaturalism a shot. You need to give us examples of methodology that derives from your Magic Happy Love Science and tell us how we are supposed to work with it to produce concrete results. Naturalism has worked just fine, Martin, and through the research of believers and non-believers alike. You can't claim that it's all philosophical bias if everyone who uses the methodology doesn't subscribe to the same philosophy.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Martin,Hearing you and every other creationist here bleat about philosophical bias is getting very old. What you need to do, what we insist you do, is learn what the accepted definition of evolution is and familiarize yourself with scientific methodology.You're insulting us by repeating your claim that we are victims of the naturalistic brainwashing machine. We have told you, told you, and told you, that our acceptance of evolutionary explanations is based on our understanding of empirical evidential inquiry and the evidence that supports the hypothesis of common descent. It's not based on atheism, it's based on honest assessment of the evidence.You then claim that the scientific evidence could support creationism as well as evolution. I submit that the only reason anyone would make such a claim is that he doesn't understand the concept of evidential inquiry, he doesn't understand the claims that evolution makes, and he is not familiar with the evidence that has been presented in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection.If you can't say what the theory of evolution is, Martin, you're not really equipped to comment on it one way or the other. You've obviously read Phillip Johnson. Fine, so have I. Now it's time to delve into what's really behind Darwin's theory, the facts and research that support evolutionary theory. Find out what evolution is, learn what molecular biology really tells us, discover the breadth and scope of the scientific basis for common descent. Without this knowledge, you're not saying anything, just accusing us of ignorance while refusing to acknowledge your own.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall< !--UE-->[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 01-04-2004]

Martin J. Koszegi writes, concerning Kenneth Miller:

quote:

---

People who believe that the Creator used evolution to create, accept evolution for the same reasons why anyone else does: they've been influenced to believe it (despite an absence of evidence for actual macroevolution).

---

Martin, you're so wrong. Kenneth Miller is a researcher in cell biology. He accepts evolution because he understands scientific methodology and the science behind evolution. He literally sees the facts that you deny exist. I understand your reluctance to deal with Miller, since he refutes all your bluster about evolution being nothing but atheistic philosophy. I understand your lack of interest in reading Finding Darwin's God, since it presents the evidence supporting evolutionary theory that you have never studied, from the perspective of a Christian who is hardly the victim of naturalistic brainwashing. I understand your absolute inability to grasp the reality of this issue, because you have never had anything concrete to present against evolutionary theory except the vague notion that it means God doesn't exist.Miller is a successful researcher, a fascinating writer, and a believer who understands science first-hand. You could learn something from him. But let's be serious, you're not here to learn.{added by edit:}
Incidentally, I found it ironic that you implied that macroevolution is not as well substantiated as the fact that the Earth orbits the sun. In fact, I couldn't demonstrate the fact of the Earth's revolution around the Sun with anything more solid than inference from a series of observations. The theory of the heliocentric model of our solar system explains observational data from astronomers concerning solar, lunar, and planetary 'motion,' but no one sees the Earth revolving around the Sun in the manner you imply. In the same way, we infer evolution (yes, macroevolution) from observations by geologists, geneticists, zoologists, molecular biologists, paleontologists, taxonomists, and various other specialists. Tell us why inference is valid in one instance and not the other. Unless you're willing to claim that we have all been brainwashed by heliocentric philosophy, I'd say there might be a rational basis for the inference of macroevolution as of heliocentrism. And I want you to confront that basis in the form of the evidence for evolution instead of continuing to rant about metaphysics.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall< !--UE-->[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 01-05-2004]