Danny Denier post #366:
"Then why are you not pushing back against those of your persuasion who promote science as atheism, Joey?
What about your most admired author, Michael Shermer, the militant atheist and sanctimonious creep who promotes, to children, the myth that Science refutes God?
How about the militant atheist and con-man, Richard Dawkins, who promotes the myth that God is a delusion?
Why do you not push back against them?" I see, Danny boy, you are still wallowing in Denier Rules mud.
Here I'm trying to make a respectable woman out of you but you just love, love to wallow -- I can't get you out!
In this case you are slavishly obeying Denier Rules #6, #7 & #8.
As for Shermer & Dawkins, when they begin posting on Free Republic, I will "push back" against them, you can count on it.
But for today I'm dealing with a professional propaganda prost... who just can't give up his dirty ways.
Danny Denier: "Who made that silly rule, Joey?
Certainly not the devout Christian geniuses, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, or James Clerk Maxwell?
So, tell us, who?"
Of course they all did, Danny boy.
They all understood that "natural philosophy" covered only natural explanations for natural processes and all, like Galileo, were willing to propose theories that might be considered anti-Biblical.
Indeed, in your own post #266 you quoted Nicolaas A. Rupke on the history of naturalism in early 19th century Scotland:
"This argument for the separation of science and the Bible was facilitated by the Edinburgh University system in which science had, for a considerable time, enjoyed an academic status independent of the humanities.
The separation was not inspired by lack of faith, but was backed by serious, exegetical arguments, namely that
- the biblical account of the deluge excludes a mechanism of violent tidal waves;
- that the story of Noah's Ark implies that all species of land animals survived; and
- that the deluge drowned not just animals but man as well, so that
- human fossils ought to occur in diluvial deposits."
Curiously, Danny, a detailed history of methodological naturalism does not seem to be readily "googleable", but a search for it does turn up some interesting names -- names we've seen elsewhere.
One of those names is philosopher Robert T. Pennock, whose arguments on this subject, at least, appear identical to my own.
Pennock was a witness for the plaintiffs in "Kitzmiller v. Dover Schools" and he provided critical information on the history of methodological naturalism that Judge Jones used in his decision.
So in that sense, "methodological naturalism" is now the legal definition of our word "science".
Truly, I'd love to give you a detailed history, but for the moment that's the best I can do.
Danny Denier: "You don't seem to mind that the religion of evolutionism is rammed down the throats of the teachers, students and voters?"
That's a lie, Danny, you need to stifle that urge.
Danny Denier: "Besides, you are missing the point.
Would teachers and parents have sued, or even thought of suing, before the collusion of the ACLU and the judiciary -- before the religious clause of Constitution was rewritten by judicial fiat to say what it was never intended to say?
What do you say about that, Oh Great Defender of the Constitution?"
The US Supreme Court's 1962 Engle v. Vitale decision was 6-1 against mandatory prayer in public schools.
The sole dissenter was Eisenhower appointee, Republican Justice Steward, originally from Michigan.
His opinion was the same as ours -- a simple prayer is not "establishment".
Frankfurter & White took no part, the rest voted against mandatory prayer, and so, that is now the law.
Voluntary prayer by, for example, a religious club is allowed, as of course is prayer in private & home schools.
In 2005, Judge Jones' decision in Kitzmiller is a different matter, since prayer was not the question.
Rather, the question was "what is science" and Jones decided that Creationism, aka "Intelligent Design", is not.
Your problem, Danny, is that you just can't accept that not only "Dover" science teachers & parents but also voters rejected the Creationist school board's efforts to ram their theology down students' throats.
I can't help you with that.
Danny Denier: "Joey would have you believe that every teacher, student, parent and voter in the Dover School District was an evolutionist, and a handful of people that served on the School Board went against the will of everyone else.
Now, who is the master propagandist?"
In fact, events showed that is exactly right -- voters fired the entire school board which had tried to impose Creationism on science classes.
Danny Denier: "The Bible is silent on whether the earth rotates around the sun, or the sun rotates around the earth, Joey. "
Not so silent, Danny boy:
- 1 Chronicles 16:30 "Fear before him, all the earth; the world also is being made stable, that it be not moved."
- 93:1 "The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."
- Psalm 96:10 "Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously."
- Psalm 104:5 "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever."
- Ecclesiastes 1:5 " The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."
Sounds pretty clear to me, and also to the Church Inquisition who convicted Galileo of
heresy.
But nice try to spin the truth, anyway.
Danny Denier: "In other words, it was the scientific community, not the church clergy, that was holding back the advancement of science.
But, nice try to spin the truth, anyway."
Total rubbish, scientists are supposed to be skeptical, but no scientist convicted Galileo of heresy.
That was the Church Inquisition, but nice try to spin the truth, anyway.
Danny Denier: "My statement also stands as true.
The doctrine of Moses and Christ are scientifically and historically accurate; and there is no one on earth who can prove otherwise.
Many blowhards will pretend they have proof, but that is why they are called blowhards."
Your statements are utter nonsense, depending 100% on Jedi-like mind tricks -- "nothing to see here, move along, move along..." ![]()
>>Kalamata post #366: "Then why are you not pushing back against those of your persuasion who promote science as atheism, Joey? What about your most admired author, Michael Shermer, the militant atheist and sanctimonious creep who promotes, to children, the myth that Science refutes God? How about the militant atheist and con-man, Richard Dawkins, who promotes the myth that God is a delusion? Why do you not push back against them?"
>>Denier Joey: "I see, Danny boy, you are still wallowing in Denier Rules mud. Here I'm trying to make a respectable woman out of you but you just love, love to wallow -- I can't get you out!"
You can only obfuscate so much before people start noticing, Girly Boy.
******************
>>Denier Joey: "As for Shermer & Dawkins, when they begin posting on Free Republic, I will "push back" against them, you can count on it. But for today I'm dealing with a professional propaganda prost... who just can't give up his dirty ways."
You are finally dealing with yourself? That is good news. When you are finished cleaning up your act, you can always post on the Youtube videos and blogs of Shermer and Dawkins. If you give them an "elated-swoon" (and I am certain you will), they may even reply to you.
******************
>>Kalamata: "Who made that silly rule, Joey? Certainly not the devout Christian geniuses, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, or James Clerk Maxwell? So, tell us, who?"
>>Denier Joey: "Of course they all did, Danny boy. They all understood that "natural philosophy" covered only natural explanations for natural processes and all, like Galileo, were willing to propose theories that might be considered anti-Biblical."
Rules for scientists are always made by power-hungry mediocrity; and it was no different in the days of Galileo:
"Thus, while the poets were celebrating Galileo's discoveries which had become the talk of the world, the scholars in his own country were, with a few exceptions, hostile or sceptical. The first, and for some time the only, scholarly voice raised in public in defence of Galileo, was Johannes Kepler's" [Arthur Koestler, "The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe." The MacMillan Company, 1959, pp.369-370]
Koestler also points out that Galileo's theological conflict was minimal:
"The first serious attack against Copernicanism on religious grounds came also not from clerical quarters but from a layman -- none other than delle Colombe, the leader of the league. His treatise Against the Motion of the Earth contained a number of quotations from Holy Scripture to prove that the earth was in the centre of the world. It was circulated in manuscript in I 610 or '11, before Galileo's public committal, and did not mention Galileo's name. Galileo himself was as yet so little worried about a possible theological conflict, that he had let almost a year pass before he asked the opinion of his friend, Cardinal Conti, on the matter. The Cardinal answered that, concerning the "immutability" of the skies, Holy Scripture seemed to favour Galileo's view rather than Aristotle's." [Ibid. p.431]
Whatever the situation, Galileo's theory was not contrary to the Bible, nor were those of Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell. Rather, the Bible served as a framework for their scientific enquiries, and their lives generally. But they, like the rest of us, were at times puzzled by the sheer complexity of it all, and were naturally concerned about "letting God down."
******************
>>Denier Joey: "Indeed, in your own post #266 you quoted Nicolaas A. Rupke on the history of naturalism in early 19th century Scotland:
Why did you rip my post out of context, Joey? I was using that post to explain the foolish "Separation of Science and the Bible" sham was still in the developmental stage in the late 1700's and early 1800's, and that it is a Johnny-Come-Lately sham that has corrupted rather than advanced science.
******************
>>Denier Joey: "Curiously, Danny, a detailed history of methodological naturalism does not seem to be readily "googleable", but a search for it does turn up some interesting names -- names we've seen elsewhere. One of those names is philosopher Robert T. Pennock, whose arguments on this subject, at least, appear identical to my own. Pennock was a witness for the plaintiffs in "Kitzmiller v. Dover Schools" and he provided critical information on the history of methodological naturalism that Judge Jones used in his decision. So in that sense, "methodological naturalism" is now the legal definition of our word "science"."
Well, at least you have corrupt judges, the NCSE, AU, and ACLU on your side. Too bad for the advancement of science that the judge was taught to equate non-scientific straw-men, like methodological naturalism, with science.
Please explain to us why "methodological naturalism" is any less a religious term than, say, "theistic naturalism," or "creationist naturalism"?
Real scientists, like Newton, Galileo, and Faraday never doubted in supernatural events. But they also believed miracles were extremely rare -- that nature would behave in a consistent manner nearly all the time. Therefore, their missions in life were to seek understanding of how God did it, and to give him glory. Perhaps that is what separates those productive geniuses, from the loud-mouthed sloths of the evolutionary "sciences."
For the record, how does "science" deal with rare supernatural events? Does "science" ignore them, or pretend they never occurred? Or, do they imagine the impossible, (such as an infinitesimally small "singularity" exploding and creating this incomprehensibly vast universe,) and pretend it was the result of methodological naturalism, and not a supernatural event? Just curious.
I almost forgot. I have two of Pennock's books, and he is no scientist, and not much of a philosopher. Sophomoric is the adjective that comes to mind. Perhaps he could learn from Michael Ruse.
******************
>>Denier Joey: "Truly, I'd love to give you a detailed history, but for the moment that's the best I can do."
Is Wikipedia off-line?
******************
>>Kalamata: "You don't seem to mind that the religion of evolutionism is rammed down the throats of the teachers, students and voters?"
>>Denier Joey: "That's a lie, Danny, you need to stifle that urge."
You are in a serious state of denial, Joey. Christians are ostracized in schools if they don't bow to the altar of Darwin. Nearly all U. S. students are subjected the type of evolutionism propaganda the German children were subjected to under the Nazis. Perhaps that is why so many have turned into violent, suppressive, big-government fascists.
"
******************
>>Kalamata: "Besides, you are missing the point. Would teachers and parents have sued, or even thought of suing, before the collusion of the ACLU and the judiciary -- before the religious clause of Constitution was rewritten by judicial fiat to say what it was never intended to say? What do you say about that, Oh Great Defender of the Constitution?"
>>Denier Joey: "The US Supreme Court's 1962 Engle v. Vitale decision was 6-1 against mandatory prayer in public schools. The sole dissenter was Eisenhower appointee, Republican Justice Steward, originally from Michigan. His opinion was the same as ours -- a simple prayer is not "establishment". Frankfurter & White took no part, the rest voted against mandatory prayer, and so, that is now the law. Voluntary prayer by, for example, a religious club is allowed, as of course is prayer in private & home schools."
None of those justices, even the lone dissenter, supported the Constitution, but a perversion of it. If they were strict constructionists they would have refused to take a case involving state religious matters.
******************
>>Denier Joey: "In 2005, Judge Jones' decision in Kitzmiller is a different matter, since prayer was not the question. Rather, the question was "what is science" and Jones decided that Creationism, aka "Intelligent Design", is not."
It was certainly a religious matter -- the ACLU made it a religious matter. The testimony and cross-examination produced specific religious questions and responses, such as:
"[B]y holding this up as an alternative to evolution, students will get the message in a flash. And the message is, over here, kids. You got your God consistent theory, your theistic theory, your Bible friendly theory, and over on the other side, you got your atheist theory, which is evolution. It produces a false duality. And it tells students basically, and this statement tells them, I think, quite explicitly, choose God on the side of intelligent design or choose atheism on the side of science." [Testimony of Ken Miller, NCSE, in "Kitzmiller vs Dover 2005: Trial Transcript." 2005, Sept 26 PM, p.54]
Even worse for religious liberty, Jones, who was operating out of his jurisdiction, and with no regard for the Constitution, accepted the ACLU's determination -- word for word in some cases, as if he copied their notes.
******************
>>Denier Joey: "Your problem, Danny, is that you just can't accept that not only "Dover" science teachers & parents but also voters rejected the Creationist school board's efforts to ram their theology down students' throats."
Your problem, Joey, is you are thoroughly brainwashed by Far-Left propaganda on cultural matters.
******************
>>Denier Joey: "I can't help you with that."
You can't even help yourself.
******************
>>Kalamata: "Joey would have you believe that every teacher, student, parent and voter in the Dover School District was an evolutionist, and a handful of people that served on the School Board went against the will of everyone else. Now, who is the master propagandist?"
>>Denier Joey: "In fact, events showed that is exactly right -- voters fired the entire school board which had tried to impose Creationism on science classes."
Your premise is, the school board was fired because they tried to impose creationism on science classes, which you have no evidence for.
Answer this: did the people fire the school board because of their decision to promote the teaching of opposing viewpoints on evolution, or because of the publicity, expense and emotional toll from the court case? You won't find the answer on your go-to atheist site, Talkorigins. But you will find the answer cluttering the history of Leftist bullying incidents.
******************
>>Kalamata: "The Bible is silent on whether the earth rotates around the sun, or the sun rotates around the earth, Joey. "
>>Denier Joey: "Not so silent, Danny boy:
>>1 Chronicles 16:30 "Fear before him, all the earth; the world also is being made stable, that it be not moved." 93:1 "The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."
>>Psalm 96:10 "Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously."
>>Psalm 104:5 "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever."
>>Ecclesiastes 1:5 " The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."
>>Sounds pretty clear to me, and also to the Church Inquisition who convicted Galileo of heresy. But nice try to spin the truth, anyway.
You forgot these passages about the earth moving, Joey:
"For thus saith the Lord of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; " -- Hag 2:6 KJV
"Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;" -- Hag 2:21 KJV
"In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried to my God: and he did hear my voice out of his temple, and my cry did enter into his ears. Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth." -- 2Sam 22:7-8 KJV
"The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly." -- Isa 24:19 KJV
"Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger." -- Isa 13:13 KJV
"Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven." -- Heb 12:26 KJV
"The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again." -- Isa 24:20 KJV
Certainly biblical scholars who were familiar with the verses you quoted, Joey, were also familiar with the ones I quoted.
Again, the Bible is silent on geo- and heliocentricity. But the question must have been asked by the ancients, "is the sun at rest and the earth moves, or is the earth at rest and the sun moves." Both are biblical; and both are possible, according to Einstein:
"Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS, not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? If this can be done, our difficulties will be over. We shall then be able to apply the laws of nature to any CS. The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [Cordinate-System] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. Could we build a real relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative motion? This is indeed possible!" [Einstein & Infeld, "The Evolution of Physics - The Growth of Ideas From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta." Simon & Schuster, 1961, p.212]
George Ellis, who was Steven Hawking's co-author on "The Large Scale Structure Of Space Time," agreed with Einstein:
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,"[George] Ellis argues. "For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations." Ellis has published a paper on this. "You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." [Gibbs, Wayt, "Profile of George F. R. Ellis - Thinking Globally, Acting Universally." Scientific American, 273(4), October, 1995, p.55]
And Feynman didn't rule it out:
"The assumption we have just mentioned implies a very strong uniformity in the universe. It is a completely arbitrary hypothesis, as far as I understand it—and of course not at all subject to any kind of observational checking, since we have been and will continue to be confined to a very small region about our galaxy, and the time development of the universe follows a"cosmological" scale a billion times longer than our lifetime. I suspect that the assumption of uniformity of the universe reflects a prejudice born of a sequence of overthrows of geocentric ideas. When men admitted the earth was not the center of the universe, they clung for a while to a heliocentric universe, only to find that the sun was an ordinary star much like any other star, occupying an ordinary (not central!) place within a galaxy which is not an extraordinary galaxy but one just like many many others. Thus, it is assumed that our place in the universe should be just like any other place in the universe, as an extension of the sequence I have described. It would be embarrassing to find, after stating that we live in an ordinary planet about an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy, that our place in the universe is extraordinary, either being the center or the place of smallest density or the place of greatest density, and so forth. To avoid this embarrassment we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity." [Feynman et al, "Feynman Lectures on Gravitation." Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1995, Lecture 12.2, p.166]
Ironic, isn't it.
******************
>>Kalamata: "In other words, it was the scientific community, not the church clergy, that was holding back the advancement of science. But, nice try to spin the truth, anyway."
>>Denier Joey: "Total rubbish, scientists are supposed to be skeptical, but no scientist convicted Galileo of heresy. That was the Church Inquisition, but nice try to spin the truth, anyway.
The scientific community were some of Galileo's chief accusers, Joey:
"[T]here existed a powerful body of men whose hostility to Galileo never abated: the Aristotelians at the universities. The inertia of the human mind and its resistance to innovation are most clearly demonstrated not, as one might expect, by the ignorant mass-which is easily swayed once its imagination is caught-but by professionals with a vested interest in tradition and in the monopoly of learning. Innovation is a twofold threat to academic mediocrities: it endangers their oracular authority, and it evokes the deeper fear that their whole, laboriously constructed intellectual edifice might collapse." [Arthur Koestler, "The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe." The MacMillan Company, 1959, p.427]
"The result of all this was that the Jesuits as a body turned against Galileo. Father Grienberger, who succeeded Clavius as head of the Roman College, was to remark later that "if Galileo had not incurred the displeasure of the Company, he could have gone on writing freely about the motion of the earth to the end of his days." The clash with the Aristotelians was inevitable. The clash with the Jesuits was not. This is not meant as an apology for the vindictiveness with which Grassi and Scheiner reacted when provoked, nor of the deplorable manner in which the Order displayed its esprit de corps. The point to be established is that the attitude of the Collegium Romanum and of the Jesuits in general changed from friendliness to hostility, not because of the Copernican views held by Galileo, but because of his personal attacks on leading authorities of the Order." [Ibid. p.470]
Why don't you face up and admit that:
1) the trial of Galileo was not about the Bible.
2) the scientific establishment is generally a bunch of whiny, arrogant, self-righteous bullies.
******************
>>Kalamata: "My statement also stands as true. The doctrine of Moses and Christ are scientifically and historically accurate; and there is no one on earth who can prove otherwise. Many blowhards will pretend they have proof, but that is why they are called blowhards."
>>Denier Joey: "Your statements are utter nonsense, depending 100% on Jedi-like mind tricks -- "nothing to see here, move along, move along..."
Oh, great; another blowhard.
Mr. Kalamata