Anti-evolution, pro science conservatives

WorldNetDaily ^ | 3/29/2008 | Gary Bauer and Daniel Allott

[wastedpotential]

Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.

Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.

We believe most Americans

[AndrewC]

Hahahaha- You first accuse me of maligning God by assigning the word’ degredation’ to a race- somethign I clearly did NOT do, and now you’re playing the victim? As I said- go play your silly little games elsewhere!!!

I did no such thing. I quoted the statement made by "Just mythoughst" so as to attack it. I was supporting you against "Just mythoughts" in post 158. I was pointing out that when a chemical decomposes that is called degrading, as "your prescription degrades over time". That is a natural process which occurs and does not have a value judgement on God. And it is a fact that you are correct in pointing out that DNA degrades. Read post 158 again, with the viewpoint that I disagree with "Just mythoughts".

[metmom]

The God of the Bible, the one who died for you so that your sins could be forgiven free of charge, and He’s the only one who can change lives.

The rest of *religions* are just man’s efforts to appease spirits, to earn their favor so that they don’t do bad things to you.

[CottShop]

[[The info has only been available for a few years. Before that time we didn’t have access to the tools necessary to sequence an entire genome]]

The claims that were are 98% similar to apes has been out for decades, and the info that they KNEW refuted this claim was withheld from the public. Even before the entire sequencing was finished, the claim was falsely made and the info withheld from the general public- it was only AFTER the info was exposed that those making hte claims of similarity consented ot revealing their findings made years earlier and kept out of public view.

[tokenatheist]

Your scientific proof of this is what?

[CottShop]

[[I did no such thing. I quoted the statement made by “Just mythoughst” so as to attack it. I was supporting you against “Just mythoughts” in post 158. I was pointing out that when a chemical decomposes that is called degrading, as “your prescription degrades over time”. That is a natural process which occurs and does not have a value judgement on God. And it is a fact that you are correct in pointing out that DNA degrades. Read post 158 again, with the viewpoint that I disagree with “Just mythoughts”.
]]

I think then there has been a misunderstanding- my apologies

[tokenatheist]

How was information that was published “withheld from the general public”?

[CottShop]

“Either biological life required intelligent design or it did not. As with most problems in science, it is difficult to prove one option or another with absolute certainty. Instead, options can be evaluated against each other in an attempt to estimate which option is more likely. Even then, the fact that one option may be more likely than another does not ‘prove’ that it is actually the case. Instead, I will propose a way in which both options can be evaluated against each other. The results indicate that it seems highly likely that intelligent design was required for biological life.”

Intelligent Design:
Required by Biological Life?
February 19, 2008
K.D. Kalinsky

http://www.newscholars.com/papers/ID%20Web%20Article.pdf

[AndrewC]

Accepted. No problem. I apologize for not being clear. I should have been clearer.

[dan1123]

Have you developed a test for materialism that can be used in the scientific process? There are assumptions that science makes that are unfalsifiable.

Don’t mistake philosophy for science. This is my pet peeve about the crevo threads.

[tokenatheist]

‘There are assumptions that science makes that are unfalsifiable.’

And those are?

[dan1123]

And those are?

You might want to start here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

A loose philosophy of science may go unexamined for simple scientific observations and basic equation fitting, but once things go into the area of origins and ethics, you better know your philosophy.

[onewhowatches]

The God of the Bible, the one who died for you so that your sins could be forgiven free of charge,

So you're busy running up the tab.

[Coyoteman]

There are assumptions that science makes that are unfalsifiable.

It is hypotheses and theories that are required to be falsifiable, not assumptions.

According to Wiki:

An assumption according to Asimov is

something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality. ... On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible.

Also, check out this essay:

Background Information—The Nature of Science

A brief excerpt:

So, what is science? Let us start by asking, what are the goals of science? Science, at its most basic level, is a search for explanations about the natural world. The goal of science is to find the best possible natural explanations for natural occurrences. Scientists seek to understand why the natural world is the way that it is, as well as how the natural world works. In order to do this, they use methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a philosophical rule used by scientists. This rule states that scientists must look for a naturalistic cause (and only a naturalistic cause) for a natural phenomenon. In other words, scientists cannot invoke supernatural explanations. This method of science assumes:

1) The natural world has an order to it—nature follows the same general rules throughout the universe
2) Natural phenomena have natural explanations
3) Humans can uncover these explanations, using critical and objective thinking, as well as careful investigation

Why do scientists use this methodology? Because it works! It has proven to be a reliable method of uncovering explanations for natural phenomena.

[dan1123]

Here is another easy to read article about the troubles with the philosophical underpinnings of science: http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43784

[dan1123]

Science, at its most basic level, is a search for explanations about the natural world.

Defining science as naturalism doesn't do away with the philosophical assumptions of science. How do you know naturalism is true? Is naturalism falsifiable?

Read the article in the link on #294 for a more in-depth look at the problems with the philosophy of science and defining science.

[Coyoteman]

Defining science as naturalism doesn't do away with the philosophical assumptions of science. How do you know naturalism is true? Is naturalism falsifiable?

I tend to avoid philosophers and their output. They have been arguing about things for several millennia and have come up with little to show for it.

I particularly ignore their comments on science. Usually they amount to nothing more than, "But we were here first! Please pay some attention to us... Oh, please!"

While philosophers are babbling on, scientists are out there doing useful things.

(Oh, and don't bother to tell me that Ph.D. stands for Doctor of Philosophy. I got a Ph.D. without ever having to take a philosophy course -- I avoided sociology and economics as well, and haven't missed any of them.)

[dan1123]

I tend to avoid philosophers and their output.

Well, until you begin to understand philosophy, your posts will continue to be stunted on crevo threads.

[tokenatheist]

Am I to understand that you feel that science isn’t welcome on threads that discuss science?

[Tramonto]

...go to your library, or take some college classes, or just peruse the internet...

I took a college class on evolution and checked out "Icons of Evolution" from the library at the same time. Quite a bit of the content from my college text was addressed in Icons. My text was full of false information, distortions and lies. If there was so much supporting data and evidence for evolution, why would text books still need to include false evidence? There is more convincing evidence that the sun rotates around the earth than that all life evolved from a common ancestor IMO.

[Dog Gone]

I guess I’d have to trust your conclusion that they contained false evidence since you provide nothing to support that contention.

I don’t think scientists have anything to gain by falsifying evidence in the long run. They never have in the past.

If you choose to reject the science, it’s really no skin off my nose or theirs’. I feel no need to persuade you.