Posted on 07/16/2007 1:53:40 PM PDT by MatthewTan
A lot of scientific soul-searching today on FR.
Am I A Metaphysical Bigot?
International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology ^ | February 15, 2005 | Clifford Sosis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1866796/posts
Posted on 07/16/2007 12:59:52 PM PDT by dan1123
Did you join soley to debate evolution vs creation ?
Melodramatic bull---. There is no theological premise in any scientific paper being published today. You have to be a romantic old scientist suffering severe dementia to believe otherwise.
What a joke!
What a cop-out.
Instead of engaging his arguments and ideas, you attack the writer.
The entire evolutionist apparatus is propped up by this sort of mindless vitriole, and it is wearing thin for most folks.
Science is highly efficient at explaining how things work, it is a trmendous edifice of the use of Reason to look at the Universe as it is.
It can not in principle explain why The Universe is there in the first place, or what, if any, is it’s purpose. Science gives prose to our understanding of the Universe, but no Poetry, no meaning.
The fundamental question that must be asked by any person who studies the Sciences is simple, Is the Universe all their is, or is there a superset to the Universe, something greater from which the Universe proceeds?
This is a difficult question, in that, by definition, the Universe is defined as that set of points that one can interact with, in principle, by bouncing a particle against it, whether a photon or other particle. From this viewpoint, the Universe is a hugh physics engine.
That which we can not, IN PRINCIPLE, interact with in such a way is by definition not in our Universe, and Science cannot make any statements about it.
Such is the pervue of Metaphysics, the attempt to understand why the Universe is here, or even if the question itself is meaningless. Each metaphysic establishes with it a set of symbols by which the person then “Sees” the Universe.
The Seculat Huminists who are commented on make the Metaphysical statement that the Universe is all there is and has no intrinsic “Meaning”. This is the underlying assumption. What I would clearly state is that one must Always questions their assumptions and never forget that their assumptions underpin all subsequent statements.
Instead of engaging his arguments and ideas, you attack the writer.
The entire evolutionist apparatus is propped up by this sort of mindless vitriole, and it is wearing thin for most folks.
I find it ironic that the Discovery Institute has a lawyer, and an intern at that, busy flogging science. Don't you?
(Let me know when they make some discoveries.)
read later
Sorry, but you're wrong.
The assumption of naturalism as the ultimate arbiter of truth *is* a 'theological premise'.
Think about it...
He isn't the only one.
Agree, and generally accepted without any serious thought as to alternative explanations.
My Christianity affords great support to the belief in an understandable Universe, by accepting an"mind" that gives the Universe structure and meaning.
Naturalism gives no such support because it assumes that that Reason is also a natural process, in which case the very thing used by naturalists to explain the Universe, Reason, is itself a part of the Universe, invoking irrevocable, circular logic, as a thing can not be used to explain itself
Only by accepting that Reason is "Meaningful" can one then accept the construct of Reason which is Science. This begs the question of what gives Reason "Meaning".
It's actually a pretty tight little circular reasoning exercise, but the naturalists will go round-and-round defending it (pun intended). ;-)
ping.
Mr. Dekat is not flogging anyone, he is reviewing a book by Cornelius G. Hunter. Maybe being a fanatic causes one's reading comprehension to drop?
Is reviewing a book you disagree with the same as flogging your favorite thing? Is Darwinism so weak it cannot stand up to criticism or ridicule? If so, then Darwinists have much in common with Mac users and other cultists. Maybe they come from the same evolutionary line?
I think a famous cult founder once said "Attack the attackers." Do Darwinists subscribe to this philosophy?
Aw, heck. Go ahead and read it now. You'll get a good laugh out of it!
I'm a Mac user too. Hmmmm.
Seriously, the Discovery Institute seems more like a PR firm devoted to pushing the anti-science religious philosophy known as ID, in hopes of replacing real science with a theistic science (see the quote from the Institute's Wedge Strategy, below).
That they are spending their money on fighting "materialism" (upon which science is based), rather than on making discoveries, is amusing to me--particularly given their name.
Also amusing to me is that when one has an overriding religious belief, it would seem the last thing one would want is new discoveries.
In fact, I think the Discovery Institute is actually against new discoveries. This is shown by the many articles they pump out denigrating science and its recent findings. We can often see these articles posted to these very threads.
Sorry, I don't have a very high opinion of the scientific acumen of the Discovery Institute.
From the Wedge Strategy: We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Desperate times...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.