or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Worse than creationism: Dualism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Worse than creationism: Dualism - Page 4

post #121 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
As BRussell pointed out, the ID folks are explicit about this. They want to change the definition of science so that it isn't based on materialism and, therefore, empiricism.

Yes, but don't you think that, when Materialists start with a metaphysical statement [all that exists is.....], something they can't possibly ever know, there might be a problem?

And as to all those 'sneaky creationists', all I have to say is:


Now be a cooperative little bunny, and let me have your brain!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #122 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Yes, but don't you think that, when Materialists start with a metaphysical statement [all that exists is.....], something they can't possibly ever know, there might be a problem?

Is that a metaphysical statement? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how it is. At any rate, I blame Plato.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #123 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
There is no observation! No experimentation!

Well, we can start with observation of speciation. Oh wait, no we cannot (or at least have not).

Let's try testing the hypothesis that "over millions of years"...oh wait...hmmm...possib;e issue with that too.

So we have the hypothesis part...but that's where it ends.

Certainly there is evidence of things like:

1. Random mutation
2. Natural selection
3. Generational trait transmission
4. Intra-species evolution

But speciation is where things get sticky. Oh and that it actually happened that way is also tricky to prove.

Sure, we have fossil evidence...snap shots in time...but of what? That things have similarities to other things past and present. It is pure hypothesis that this similarity is a result of evolution as a process. It is a hypothesis.

Sure, we have DNA evidence...but of what? That things have similarities to other things. It is pure hypothesis that this similarity is a result of evolution as a process. It is a hypothesis.
post #124 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, we can start with observation of speciation. Oh wait, no we cannot (or at least have not).

If I provided you evidence that speciation has been observed, would you change your mind about biological evolution?
post #125 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It is a hypothesis.

On one side you have a million seperate pieces of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion.

On the other side you have a 2000 year old book that also tells you to stone people to death on a regular basis.

I can see why you would think the two sides are equally matched...
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #126 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That things have similarities to other things. It is pure hypothesis that this similarity is a result of evolution as a process. It is a hypothesis.

Good thing they call it a theory then.

But back on topic: the real issue with the nitpicking you're doing here is that the logical conclusion ISN'T that there must be some intelligent designer. It's that we can never know anything with certainty, and so maybe we all oughta go and off ourselves.

Oh, wait. Conscience does make cowards of us all.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #127 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
If I provided you evidence that speciation has been observed, would you change your mind about biological evolution?

This has been tried before. I assume you have something other than "ring species".
post #128 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
On one side you have a million seperate pieces of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion.

Evidence that might point to such a conclusion. Might not too.

Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
On the other side you have a 2000 year old book that also tells you to stone people to death on a regular basis.

I didn't bring up the book. Straw man all you like.
post #129 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Is that a metaphysical statement? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how it is. At any rate, I blame Plato.

Fair enough -- I hear you. But the greek reference reminded me of something:
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
The good thing is that if they are successful, other countries will take over scientific leadership from this lousy christian paridise.

My kids who are old enough, are home schooled. One child's 'Christian' curriculum for geography started with the discovery/exploration of the New World. Not several pages into the first lesson it declared that 'people used to think the earth was flat' -- I was horrified. I had to sit down with the child and explain that in the middle of the third century B.C, Eratosthenes computed the circumference of the world to within 48 miles, and that after that, an erroneous use of the star Canopus ended up being the only reason Columbus attempted to sail for India -- because if he knew that actual distance he would have never tried; the Canopus method was thousands of miles off.

At any rate, In his recent "State of the University" speech condemning intelligent design, Cornell President Hunter Rawlings said:
Quote:
In creating what has been called the first American university, Ezra Cornell and Andrew Dickson White insisted that it break new intellectual ground... White made the defense of science, including evolution, the center of his scholarly attention during and after his presidency. It figured prominently in the history courses he managed to teach at Cornell while president. It figured in the lectures he was invited to give, as a leading college president, around the country. And it formed the basis of his magnum opus, a two-volume work entitled A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.

...at any rate, the book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, played a major role in this flat Earth myth and has been discredited as anti-Christian propaganda.

Looking through my child's curriculum, and attempting to convince her what she had read was not true, well, the irony was palpable.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #130 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Good thing they call it a theory then.

But some (and here quite often) go well beyond "theory" and caution us all to not assume that theory means anything but "proven fact".

Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
the real issue with the nitpicking you're doing here

Yes...that's it...nitpicking...you got it.

Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
It's that we can never know anything with certainty, and so maybe we all oughta go and off ourselves.

Well, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. And certainly hope no one goes and "offs themselves" for any reason...even if that reason is that their existence is purely a random accident of nature.
post #131 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This has been tried before. I assume you have something other than "ring species".

Well? Would it change your mind at all? If I provided you with verified examples of speciation, would you accept biological evolution, or at least acknowledge that it is evidence in favor of it? Because otherwise, I don't really see the point.
post #132 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort.

But you are. That's been my whole point throughout this discussion. The logical conclusion is not that it's God or Magic or Aliens or some All-Powerful Entity. The logical conclusion is that we cannot know anything with any certainty, which is what Paul de Man (since we're deputizing English professors into this argument and all) describes as the "whirligig" of existence.

That's why I quoted Hamlet, above, since what Hamlet argues in the "to be or not to be" speech is that the only reason we don't all go off and kill ourselves is because we cannot be certain that any life after this one (if there is one at all) would be any better than what we have now. And so "conscience does make cowards of us all."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #133 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Well? Would it change your mind at all? If I provided you with verified examples of speciation, would you accept biological evolution, or at least acknowledge that it is evidence in favor of it? Because otherwise, I don't really see the point.

As I said...it's been tried...but give the old "college try" again if you wish (and "ring species" aren't it (fruit flies either for that matter).
post #134 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
As I said...it's been tried...but give the old "college try" again if you wish (and "ring species" aren't it (fruit flies either for that matter).

Anything else that "doesn't count"? Homonids, maybe? Mammals?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #135 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
But you are.

Or...I'm not.

I do not subscribe to the belief that "we cannot know anything with any certainty"...and I certainly don't want anyone going and "offing themselves".

However, I do believe that the certaintity with which many believe Evolution (as unassailable fact BTW) as the explanation for the emergence of all species as we know them is based on untested, untestable ("well, over gazillions of years"...sorry...not testable) and specious assertions, hypothesis and presuppositions...much of which essentially amounts to "well everything exists...so it must have evolved...what other explanation can there possibly be?"

For the record, I do not deny the evidence that strongly suggests things like:

- Natural selection
- Random mutations
- Generational trait tranmission
- Intra-species evolution

These things are actually quite obvious (though frankly, it seems that in most cases "random genetic mutation" has bad not good side-effects from what we generally seem to observe.)

The leap to speciation is a large one.

P.S. Hey I noticed that you have conveniently ignored my question about detecting God's activity. "Large scale" you quipped...to which I quipped back "Like creating the universe" (which, evidentally, is not quite large enough scale for you )
post #136 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Anything else that "doesn't count"? Homonids, maybe? Mammals?

Well ring species don't appear to prove what is claimed. And fruit flies...in a lab controlled environment? They are still fruit flies...and they have mutated under control of a...wait for it...intelligent being.

EDIT: Well, my weekend "play time" is about up...time for me to evolve my relationships with friends and family.
post #137 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Or...I'm not.

I do not subscribe to the belief that "we cannot know anything with any certainty"...and I certainly don't want anyone going and "offing themselves".

However, I do believe that the certaintity with which many believe Evolution (as unassailable fact BTW) as the explanation for the emergence of all species as we know them is based on untested, untestable ("well, over gazillions of years"...sorry...not testable) and specious assertions, hypothesis and presuppositions...much of which essentially amounts to "well everything exists...so it must have evolved...what other explanation can there possibly be?"

The next time you launch into something like this, try replacing "testable" with "knowable with any certainty." That's what you mean, I suspect.

Quote:
P.S. Hey I noticed that you have conveniently ignored my question about detecting God's activity. "Large scale" you quipped...to which I quipped back "Like creating the universe" (which, evidentally, is not quite large enough scale for you )

Sorry. I thought you were joking. My response would have been "begs the question."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #138 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
The next time you launch into something like this, try replacing "testable" with "knowable with any certainty." That's what you mean, I suspect.

You suspect wrong. Testable != "knowable with any certainty."...at least in my mind...perhaps in yours.

Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Sorry. I thought you were joking. My response would have been "begs the question."

Nope. Looks like you found a new phrase to toss around. But aren't evolutionists doing just that ("begging the question") when they begin with the presumption that everything evolved?

Enough for me...out for now. Have fun guys.
post #139 of 195
I've been resisting entering this conversation because trying to talk about science with people who simply can't or won't get a handle on what that is and how it works is, for my at least, uniquely crazy making, even for the generally crazy making fact free declarations of my dear friends of the faith based right.

But what the hell, this is why God, in its terrifyingly mechanical deterministic wisdom, made PO, no?

I think Midwinter has the general case well in hand. In attempting to refute the underpinnings of the scientific method or promote articles of faith (which is what all these arguments devolve into, claims of "love the science, condemn the theory" or "here also is another "theory" notwithstanding), you end up being obliged to replace "knowable" (in its post-enlightenment sense) with "not-knowable".

Now there are, of course, other ways of apprehending the universe besides testing hypothesis against the available evidence in a systematic manner, but the problem arises in trying to graft such approaches onto the modern world without breaking the parts of the "systematic approach" that quite evidently (as it were) work really well.

In fact, the container of the modern world really leaves only two approaches: pretend faith is "scientific" or claim science is really just another faith (I think DMZ is calling for some kind of God struck consciousness event that renders all this moot but I can't really tell).

The first gets you ID et al, the second gets you "you may not theorize about what is not directly observable" and "any minor historical inconsistency, disagreement between researchers or changes in viewpoint over time I can read about on a website makes the entire edifice collapse under its own hubris" and all their tiresome, fallacious variants.

The crazy making part, of course, is that "fallacious" is a word that ceases to have meaning if you hitch your wagon to either of those positions, which I believe is more-or-less Midwinter's point.

Unless we want to have at it like mediaeval alchemists, strongly advocating for our particular arcania, it is very difficult to have what we, as modern people, would understand to be a "discussion" sans any epistemological ground rules, epistemological ground rules being the bath water that keeps getting forcibly ejected every time this baby comes round.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #140 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
I've been resisting entering this conversation because trying to talk about science with people who simply can't or won't get a handle on what that is and how it works is, for my at least, uniquely crazy making, even for the generally crazy making fact free declarations of my dear friends of the faith based right.

Well, considering this has veered off into the ID theories of an English professor, I guess no one's safe.

Quote:
Now there are, of course, other ways of apprehending the universe besides testing hypothesis against the available evidence in a systematic manner, but the problem arises in trying to graft such approaches onto the modern world without breaking the parts of the "systematic approach" that quite evidently (as it were) work really well.

Well, what seems to me to be happening is yet another example of the conservatives' attempt to get back to the good old days of the 18th century. Here, for instance, it's about going back to the debate between Rationalism and Empiricism. But that's just my gut instinct. Pfflam would certainly know more about it than I do.

The other thing that's disturbing about this is that from its beginning, it seems to have been a debate designed to play out among non-specialists. And so when you arm non-specialists with a few talking points here and there about ring species and fruit flies and speciation, what's the opposition non-specialist side to do? In the end, all our gyrations don't mean squat, since I don't think any of us here are evolutionary biologists (unless you are, Adda?) But it all smacks of grass-rootsyness, doesn't it? And grassrootsy things are good and wholesome, we all know.

One of my other points, though, is that any time you advance a theory like this that so brazenly attempts not just to take on an institution (science) but to remake the entire field on which that institution rests, you run the risk that you will undermine your own sure footing. I just don't see how this could play out in any other way, since on the one hand it attempts to redefine epistemology and on the other it attempts to render God a kind of scientific phenomenonand that, that's the end of God.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #141 of 195
An interesting story over at /.
Quote:
After carefully reviewing the latest version of the standards, the leadership of the National Academies National Research Council and the National Science Teachers Association have decided they cannot grant the Kansas State School Board permission to use substantial sections of text from two standards-related documents: the research councils National Science Education Standards and Pathways to Science Standards, published by NSTA. The organizations sent letters to Kansas school authorities on Wednesday, Oct. 26 requesting that their copyrighted material not be used.

...all I can say is "wow"

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/1027kansas.shtml

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #142 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
An interesting story over at /.

...all I can say is "wow"

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/1027kansas.shtml

I think the actions of the AAAS are right on the money.

There is no way to "compromise" or find some middle ground for the teaching of science with people who reject science, and ID, creationism, dualism, etc. are rejections of science.

Now, if the Kansas school board wants to seek the approval of, and authorization from, some kind of "Council of Faith Based Ways of Knowing" then fine and dandy.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #143 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
As I said...it's been tried...but give the old "college try" again if you wish (and "ring species" aren't it (fruit flies either for that matter).

You still won't say what impact such evidence would have in this discussion. You accept inheritance and variation and natural selection and adaptation and all the pieces of biological evolution, but you say it can't create different species. That's your line in the sand. So it seems to me that if there is observed evidence of the creation of different species, your line would be crossed, right? You've created your own little falsifiable hypothesis for yourself.
post #144 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
I think the actions of the AAAS are right on the money.

There is no way to "compromise" or find some middle ground for the teaching of science with people who reject science

No one is rejecting science, addabox, they are rejecting materialism. The sooner 'we' can focus on the crux of the issue, the soon this can be resolved.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #145 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
No one is rejecting science, addabox, they are rejecting materialism. The sooner 'we' can focus on the crux of the issue, the soon this can be resolved.

No one is rejecting religion, dmz; they are rejecting supernaturalism. The sooner 'we' can focus on the crux of the issue, the sooner this can be resolved/
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #146 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
You still won't say what impact such evidence would have in this discussion.

Because I won't commit to a conclusion before I see the evidence.

Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
You've created your own little falsifiable hypothesis for yourself.

I suppose I have.
post #147 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
No one is rejecting religion, dmz; they are rejecting supernaturalism. The sooner 'we' can focus on the crux of the issue, the sooner this can be resolved/

midwinter is so cute when he tries to be snarky.

post #148 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
No one is rejecting religion, dmz; they are rejecting supernaturalism. The sooner 'we' can focus on the crux of the issue, the sooner this can be resolved/

Well, a rose by any other name... In any case, there is no way around this, either all that exists is matter and scientific principles or there is more. Either position is Faith-based -- it's inescapable.

If it's any help, the sneaky Creationists learned their lesson (for the most part) about binding people's consciences in about 1517.

Edit: My afternoon pick: Mozart's Requiem and Marker's Mark -- is it Fall yet?

Edited Edit: go here:

http://choeurdesmarais.free.fr/disques.html

...for a free, and legal, and pretty frelling good version.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #149 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter

The other thing that's disturbing about this is that from its beginning, it seems to have been a debate designed to play out among non-specialists. And so when you arm non-specialists with a few talking points here and there about ring species and fruit flies and speciation, what's the opposition non-specialist side to do? In the end, all our gyrations don't mean squat, since I don't think any of us here are evolutionary biologists (unless you are, Adda?) But it all smacks of grass-rootsyness, doesn't it? And grassrootsy things are good and wholesome, we all know.

One of my other points, though, is that any time you advance a theory like this that so brazenly attempts not just to take on an institution (science) but to remake the entire field on which that institution rests, you run the risk that you will undermine your own sure footing. I just don't see how this could play out in any other way, since on the one hand it attempts to redefine epistemology and on the other it attempts to render God a kind of scientific phenomenonand that, that's the end of God. [/B]

Right, and that's my major beef with a broad spectrum of right wing initiatives as of late: it's not the disinformation, which, after all, can always be countered by better information and the evidence to back it up; it's the coordinated, sustained attack of the mechanisms of information itself.

It's as if in some conservative think tank somewhere they ran the numbers and realized that reality and conservative precepts couldn't cohabitate, so instead of modifying their precepts they set out to undermine reality.

And as I believe you have pointed out, it's led to this highly unnerving, inverse recapitulation of deconstructionist thinking, with, I suppose, God instead of Marx serving as the back-stop.

And, predictably, coming up against the same dilemma: the solvent is too powerful and dissolves the container.

The big difference, as you point out, is that deconstruction was always pitched at an educated audience and relied on subtle (if not outright baffling) analysis of the construction of meaning and so forth (how's that for a pregnant elision?), whereas the conservative war on reality relies on the ignorance of its target audience regarding basic precepts of scientific method, logic, cause and effect, etc.

Which sort of gives away the game. Cynically exploiting the credulous is rather a different undertaking than unmasking the workings of power. But I wonder if the expedient types that have set this thing in motion even realize the damage that they are doing, and how difficult it is, once you "discredit" rationality, to get everyone back on the same page?

I mean, it's not like we've ever been a nation of scholars, and the proud achievements of the enlightenment, so central to the men who founded this country, have, I think, for most Americans, always been more a matter of 'implicit tone" rather than the product of careful thought or education. The sense that there really is such a thing as objective truth and that the body politic is better served at least trying to cleave to same than not.

And now these same Americans are more or less being explicitly told that no, all that sorting through the evidence jazz was just a liberal trick by People Not Like You who are trying to Cloud Your Minds with their fancy university talk.

Reality is what flatters your local prejudices. It's whatever works for the argument at hand. It's what we say it is. It lies somewhere between "might makes right" and "because God said so".

Is that a genie that goes back into the bottle? Do some of you who are arguing for this kind of provisional, political definition of truth, whether you know it or not, really want to live in a country where it doesn't?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #150 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
No one is rejecting science, addabox, they are rejecting materialism. The sooner 'we' can focus on the crux of the issue, the soon this can be resolved.

Well, yes, some of us are rejecting science, although some of us won't admit or don't know it, which is kind of the central point of great swaths of this argument.

It's as if we had people saying "Well, I don't reject math, I just think that "2+2=5" is also math, just math that challenges your arrogant assumptions".

Science is a tool for discerning certain things about the universe. It does this in the domain of rationality. That's its domain.

Science has nothing to say and does not speculate on other domains, because it has neither the language or tools to do so. You will not find scientists saying things like "we can prove there is no God, no soul, no afterlife, no metaphysical dimension to life". Scientists instead say things like "there is no evidence at this time for those things". That leaves the individual, including individual scientists, free to apprehend other domains of being--just not with the tools of science. Seems fair to me.

Just because a hammer exists does not mean that the hammer is insisting that the whole world is a nail, though some overenthusiastic carpenters may be prey to this notion.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #151 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Because I won't commit to a conclusion before I see the evidence.

I suppose I have.

Here's a link. Worms, plants, flies, other bugs, mice, fish.
post #152 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
It's as if we had people saying "Well, I don't reject math, I just think that "2+2=5" is also math, just math that challenges your arrogant assumptions".

What a brutally flawed analogy. Here a better one...

It is as if people see this image:

http://www.unoriginal.co.uk/optical_illusions/2_3.gif

And one says "I see two people facing one another" and someone else says "I see a vase"...and one side says "there is no other possible way to view this drawing (i.e., evidence) except the way I am viewing it now."
post #153 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, we can start with observation of speciation. Oh wait, no we cannot (or at least have not).

Let's try testing the hypothesis that "over millions of years"...oh wait...hmmm...possib;e issue with that too.

You know, you should really read Behe and Dembski, who are essentially the chief intellects behind the current ID movement.

Neither of them deny that evolution is a science. They both want to see the definition of science expanded to include the admission of the possibility of supernatural causes, but neither complain that anyone is being dishonest about calling evolution a proper science.

Yes, they both think that evolution expects too much from the power of natural selection and random mutation, but in saying so they only posit that their proposal of a designer is a better explanation, not that evolution is unscientific.

You're parroting the kind of nonsense that the Ken Hovinds of this world specialize in, the kinds of things that Behe and Dembski are embarrassed by, and wish to distance themselves from.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #154 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Well, yes, some of us are rejecting science, although some of us won't admit or don't know it, which is kind of the central point of great swaths of this argument.

It's as if we had people saying "Well, I don't reject math, I just think that "2+2=5" is also math, just math that challenges your arrogant assumptions".

Science is a tool for discerning certain things about the universe. It does this in the domain of rationality. That's its domain.

You're missing the boat on this, addabox. Science ends when a Materialist conclusively presumes that evolution is "uncaused", because he denies all notions of transcendence to do so. Faith, meet Science. Science, meet Faith.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #155 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What a brutally flawed analogy. Here a better one...

It is as if people see this image:

http://www.unoriginal.co.uk/optical_illusions/2_3.gif

And one says "I see two people facing one another" and someone else says "I see a vase"...and one side says "there is no other possible way to view this drawing (i.e., evidence) except the way I am viewing it now."

Anyone who believes that the processes and conclusions of the scientific method are akin to a perceptual illusion rejects science.

And yes, I must insist, if you believe that evolutionary science is "fake" or "bad" science, you are believing that about all of science. You are applying criteria that would oblige us to discard the most basic investigations into the nature of the universe, cosmology and sub-atomic theory.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #156 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
You're missing the boat on this, addabox. Science ends when a Materialist conclusively presumes that evolution is "uncaused", because he denies all notions of transcendence to do so. Faith, meet Science. Science, meet Faith.

Except that science doesn't do that. Why do we keep having to repeat this?

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY SAYS NOTHING ABOUT FIRST CAUSES. It simply describes a mechanism by which organisms change over time.

The history of evolutionary biology is full of devout Christians who marveled at the subtlety and beauty of God's handiwork in creating such an elegant method for making life adaptable to changing conditions.

They didn't lie away nights trying to reconcile their faith and science because they saw no conflict. Their faith spoke to a different order of knowing.

See how that works? Science allows for one person to consider the formation of galaxies and conclude that the universe is the sum of its parts, while another may take his soul's delight in the awe and majesty of creation.

Neither is precluded, because science is not in the business of speculating about the unprovable.

SCIENCE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF SPECULATING ABOUT THE UNPROVABLE.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #157 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Anyone who believes that the processes and conclusions of the scientific method are akin to a perceptual illusion rejects science.

You've missed the point.

Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
And yes, I must insist, if you believe that evolutionary science is "fake" or "bad" science, you are believing that about all of science.

No. Just because you insist doesn't make it so.
post #158 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Except that science doesn't do that. Why do we keep having to repeat this?

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY SAYS NOTHING ABOUT FIRST CAUSES. It simply describes a mechanism by which organisms change over time.

You're missing the crux of the argument, this simply has nothing to do with evolution. AAAS has resorted to legal maneuvering not because ID has a problem with Evolution, but because ID calls Materialism into question.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #159 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Well, a rose by any other name... In any case, there is no way around this, either all that exists is matter and scientific principles or there is more. Either position is Faith-based -- it's inescapable.

What's that bit in Life of Pi? "Atheists are just my brothers of a different faith? They go as far as their reason will take them and then...they leap" or something like it.

Quote:
Edit: My afternoon pick: Mozart's Requiem and Marker's Mark -- is it Fall yet?

Beam and Coke, Austen's Mansfield Park, and Beethoven's 4th & 7th. Believe it or not, I tried the Requiem earlier today, but it's just too, requiem-y. You know, it weirds me out how often we seem to converge like this.

As for MM...you should try Evan Williams Single Barrel. About the same price and WAAAAAY better taste.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #160 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
SCIENCE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF SPECULATING ABOUT THE UNPROVABLE.

Perhaps not "science"...but almost certainly "evolution" is in this business.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Worse than creationism: Dualism