Posted on 04/24/2003 7:35:19 PM PDT by Heartlander
Pharisaical Science
(The separation of an intelligent agent and science in biology)
Thou shall have no other builder beyond Nature alone.
Adhere only to the Natural Laws that are from Nature alone because to invoke an intelligent agent before mankind is blasphemy!
- The current biology science academia
A scientific scholar or layman might be eager to respond to this statement but would be quickly shot down by one who adheres only to the Natural Laws with a familiar cry of, Blasphemy! Yes its true; evidently biology science has provided us with the true knowledge that there is no intelligence behind our own intelligence, and thus the scientific method used to prove this as a fact. Sound crazy? Government subsidized employees are preaching this at their pulpit right now! (No, the public school bell does not ring on Sundays) Let me now state, my problem is not with evolution per se, but with Naturalism.
It is no longer the three Rs, it is now the four Fs: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and well reproducing. It is all stated quite clearly in the textbooks that are from the Gospel of Darwin in his famous book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859) and now championed by Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design.
A blind watchmaker is one thing but Dawkins is stating that the watchmaker doesnt just lack sight - this watchmaker lacks intelligence. Science can wax poetic all they want about evolution but if there is not an intelligent driving force behind the emergence of mankind then this must extend into our universe. Dawkins revealed that due to natural selection extending into nature and thus the entire natural world. Either the universe has a purpose or it does not and it was either created by intelligence or blind ignorance. This extends to mankind, our history, intellect, reasoning, being, morality, and purpose.
Now one might argue that this is absurd and that there is an intelligent driving force behind it all, but your argument is not with me, its with the current scientific commune. With nature alone as our creator we are able to put it into a test tube, look at it under a microscope, test, and control. Welcome to the world of neo-Darwinism where the tree of life equals the tree of knowledge. The natural world alone holds the key to enlightenment and to introduce anything else is Blasphemy!
Our lives, our very existence and being come down to this:
Add matter, heat and stir.
(Check occasionally every few billion years)
Is who we are what we actually see - or what we cannot see; meaning who we really are i.e. our conscience? It seems that our very conscience and being is a supernatural occurrence. There is no logical explanation for nature alone providing mankind with logic other than we have logic so it must be so! Thoughts, concepts, and morality are not physical. Engineers, when conceptualizing a new device, are unembodied intelligent designers. Absolute morality (thus right and wrong, justice, and truth) cannot come from nature alone. We are who we are and made from something that must tie into what we are. If nature lacks any direction, purpose, intelligence, morality, justice, love, logic, and reason than what is scientific naturalism telling us?
Post-Modernism says that there is no truth, that all we can hope to do is instill meaning into life by bringing in our own interpretation. This is an elimination of any truth.
The scientific method is limited. Science can collect facts, but these pieces of information cannot tell us what we ought to do. It ignores the very real possibility that something real exists beyond the natural world, and it is thus doomed to look within its own self-defined "closed system" for an adequate ethical base. Unfortunately, none honestly exists, philosophically, except the natural law of nature, "red in tooth and claw"
- In Memorium, Tennyson
Darwins only college degree was in theology and his father paid for his degree because Darwin could not stomach medical school. Darwin struggled with the problem of good and evil in the world and could not understand how the two could survive together. I am a Christian and knowing that Darwin received his degree in theology I hope he did not miss this simple but important passage that speaks of Divine purpose, love, free will, justice, and the coexistence or good & evil:
This man was handed over to you by Gods set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross
Acts 2:23
Is this just more Blasphemy?
What church do you go to? In mine we are taught that lying is a Bad Thing, and I really don't believe that Jesus will be please with you for weaseling around like this.
evolution, as I have said many times is ANTI-SCIENCE.
The central point of science is the discovery of causes and effects and materialist evolution denies it. It proposes random events as the engine of the transformation of species.
This is totally unscientific, it is an attack on science which in order to expand human knowledge and human health and living standards needs to find the causes and effects of how our Universe functions.
Randomness answers nothing and leads to no discoveries.
In fact it opposes scientific inquiry and is a philosophical know-nothingism.
That is why evolution has been popular with the masses and virtually ignored by scientists.
It is ... pseudo-science (( source )) --- for morons.
With a few words such as 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection' it seeks to make idiots think they are knowledgeable.
We see the idiocy of evolution and evolutionists daily on these threads. That is why they all repeat the same stock phrases, throw a few links (because they cannot even understand the concepts being discussed), but never give any facts showing their theory to be what they claim it is - the center of science. If it was, they should have no problem doing so. It is not, that's why they cannot.
sop ...
The theory of evolution is just that - a theory.
g3 ...
It may be a theory, but it is not a scientifically supported theory which is what evolutionists claim it to be. Anybody can have a theory about anything. It is whether a theory is valid that is the point. So you have not given any evidence for your side. All you have done is indulge in rhetoric, but you have not shown that evolution is science or have in any way refuted my statement that evolution cannot in fact be science because of its central proposition that 'evolution just happens'.
Such is not science.
539 posted on 03/13/2003 8:59 PM PST by gore3000
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.