CMI article image
("game").
Posted on 10/17/2016 8:44:23 AM PDT by fishtank
The name game: scientific ideas named after creationists
by Shaun Doyle
Can creationists be real scientists? High priest of Darwinism Richard Dawkins doesn’t seem to think so:
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”1 And apparently we can trust Dawkins’ assessment, since recently a genus of fish has been named after him—Dawkinsia.2 In the words of lead researcher Rohan Pethiyagoda:
“Richard Dawkins has through his writings helped us understand that the universe is far more beautiful and awe-inspiring than any religion has imagined. We hope that Dawkinsia will serve as a reminder of the elegance and simplicity of evolution, the only rational explanation there is for the unimaginable diversity of life on Earth.”3 One evolutionist blogger commenting on this gleefully proclaimed: “Your move, Creationists.”4
We might call this the ‘name game challenge’. Things in science are named after people who have made significant contributions to science all the time. No doubt Pethiyagoda thought he was doing that in naming the new fish genus Dawkinsia. But do creationists have anything in science named after them?
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
CMI article image
("game").
Bacon
Kepler
Newton
Boyle
Dalton
Maxwell
Kelvin
Ampere
Pascal
Joule
Faraday
Pasteur
Mercator
You know who these people in that list are:
Just a bunch of unpublished idiots who run around blogging on creationist websites....
/SARC
Bookmark
What a dumb post. That’s like condemning all scientists who lived before the 20th century for not knowing about Einstein’s General Relativity. Of course they didn’t know about it - any more than 17th century scientists knew about evolution or Greek scientists knew about America.
Excellent article, recommended for anyone like myself who likes to see how much of science is based on work of believers in the Bible.
Also important to remember the dividing line between science and religion, so when scientists like Dawkins make a religion of their naturalism, that is not what science is intended to be.
Smells like, I don’t know... desperation.
Next up: Fishtank is going to say gravitation doesn't exist because Aristotle didn't know about it and hey, we all agree he was pretty smart.
Better to post about what Freepers and articles actually say, rather than post straw-men of your own devising.
Otherwise you’re just raising the noise-to-signal ratio.
Thanks in advance.
We would have been a lot better off if Newton hadn’t invented gravity.
‘Float, float on. Float on and on ...”
You seem to have an inordinate interest in pushing atheist talking points.
Why so invested?
” Of course they didn’t know about it - any more than 17th century scientists knew about evolution or Greek scientists knew about America.”
Of course in actual history Greeks had been kicking around the idea of evolution as early as 600 BC with Anaximander.
And long before the 17th Century Augustine of Hippo had offered his own idea of evolution which anticipated the intelligent design argument, this circa 400 AD.
Evolution as a theory wasn’t invented by Darwin, he simply described a purely material version based on the prevailing knowledge of cell structure before anything was known about the complexity of genetics.
“We hope that Dawkinsia will serve as a reminder of the elegance and simplicity of evolution, the only rational explanation there is for the unimaginable diversity of life on Earth.”
Darwinism and the theory of the universal common ancestor is the multi-level marketing / pyramid scheme of modern science.
Their attempts to make evolutionary change from selective pressure in nature to be the quintessential truth of all reality — the theory of everything — is a tautology. It is the Borg of their scientific world view. It is their deity.
It cannot be argued with because it is not really a theory. It is their a priori assumption necessary to prop up their radical anti-God views.
Amen.
The Apostle Paul presciently spoke of them in a couple of places:
Rom. 1:18-32 (Technically an evolutionist’s “god” would be that first “simple” single-celled organism. That would ultimately be their creator. That might help explain their anger. We’re basically blaspheming their “god” when we deny evolution.)
1 Tim. 6:20 (”Historical” science isn’t the same as observable, repeatable, operational science. They weren’t there and creating life in a test tube is impossible, so inference, extrapolation, etc., runs rampant with “historical” science.)
They’re somehow unable to grasp that theirs is just as much a faith-based belief system as creationism is. No amount of berating or scolding or criticizing creationists will change that simple fact.
But, if they want to prove their case, they need to throw a bunch of lifeless chemicals together and subject them to whatever stimulus, etc., they want, and create a “simple” single-celled organism. They can’t do it, of course. To believe that such profound complexity as a “simple” single-celled organism can spring spontaneously from lifeless chemicals is laughably absurd. Darwin ignorantly believed that cells were just a blob of protoplasm that could spontaneously spring to life from lifeless chemicals. We know its stupendous complexity better now.
In reality, that “simple” single-celled organism arising spontaneously from lifeless chemicals would be a miracle of miracles, i.e, supernatural, because no natural process could do such an impossible thing. Creationists also believe in the supernatural, but more reasonably, since we believe that the Creator of nature can do with nature whatever He wishes.
To believe that even a single usable protein could be created through natural processes has been likened to believing that a solar system full of blind men could all simultaneously solve the Rubik’s Cube. A “simple” single-celled organism needs dozens of them. And to believe that an entire single-celled organism could magically spring from lifeless chemicals has been likened to believing that a tornado tearing through a junkyard could create a fully functional 747.
You seem to have an inordinate interest in pushing strawmen.
You’re confusing philosophy with science. Darwin outlined a scientific process for which he had evidence and which has withstood scientific testing and inquiry. Earlier thinkers like Anaximander may have believed that things changed over time, but that wasn’t by any stretch a scientific notion.
Dawkins apparently believes that he’s reduced God to a hypothesis that he has then falsified.
Did someone talk about strawman arguments just a few moments ago?
Then science thus confesses it is smaller than philosophy, let alone smaller than theology!
And you know, Kaker? Even to address your very tag point, technically yes science does keep an open mind even about gravity. If a science ever taught that there was no possible way to falsify gravity, then it would cease to be a science. It can teach that no scientist has yet found a way to falsify gravity, but it cannot by its own philosophical underpinnings teach that there is no possible way to falsify gravity. This is science presuming to ascend into the realm of faith.
And actually there has been something that has come at least “perilously close” to falsifying gravity. We know it as dark matter, which is a hypothetical entity that was chosen to make the equations of the observed interactions of matter in the universe, with other matter and energy, make sense. But what if there were no dark matter but instead, gravity modifiers? Could we approach the question from that side?
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.