Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What are Darwinists so afraid of?
worldnetdaily.com ^ | 07/27/2006 | Jonathan Witt

Posted on 07/27/2006 3:00:03 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,561-1,5801,581-1,6001,601-1,620 ... 1,701-1,719 next last
To: King Prout
You might also wish to compare DNA to the way computer programs are now constructed using automated evolutionary algorhythms rather than deliberate designer encoding.

Hard drives were being designed this way a decade ago. It has generated some of the most reliable/durable designs in the industry. It produced good baseline designs that the engineers could then tweak into a production designs; the evolutionary designs were solid, but there were usually a few bits that were noticeably suboptimal in evaluation and which could be fixed without breaking the design if care was taken.

1,581 posted on 08/05/2006 11:54:02 AM PDT by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1580 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
but there were usually a few bits that were noticeably suboptimal in evaluation and which could be fixed without breaking the design if care was taken.

sounds similar to the "designs" produced through biological evolution. the knee, as an example.

1,582 posted on 08/05/2006 12:03:53 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1581 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

just one note: I'd hesitate to dignify Egyptology with the name "science" or "history"


1,583 posted on 08/05/2006 2:04:31 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1579 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Science in Merriam Websters dictionary; " a department of systemized knowledge as an object of study, (the science of theology).
"knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method"
Of course that includes a wide varied of subjects. And there are many very reputable creation scientists that would differ with your charcterization of the toe debate being over. They are no less qualified than any other scientist.


1,584 posted on 08/05/2006 2:13:33 PM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1575 | View Replies]

To: fabian
That's not the meaning that is used by scientists, like physicists or biologists. Physics, biology, chemistry, and so on; these are all NATURAL sciences, and as such, have their field of inquiry limited to strictly natural, testable claims. That is not something that CAN change. It is the nature of what science is.

""knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method"

That would be acceptable, if vague. The scientific method is confined to the natural world.

"And there are many very reputable creation scientists that would differ with your charcterization of the toe debate being over."

The debate is over for 99%+ working biologists. *Creation scientists* is an oxymoron.

"They are no less qualified than any other scientist."

Sure they are if their field of study is not biology, or if they have abandoned the methods of science.

There is no field of the natural sciences (what is meant when one says *science*) that examines anything but the natural world.
1,585 posted on 08/05/2006 2:23:24 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Now reading "Benjamin Franklin" by Edmund S. Morgan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1584 | View Replies]

To: fabian; CarolinaGuitarman
oh, dear... the appeal to Webster.
It is ever an error to go to the dictionary if one is not familiar with the roots of the terms being considered.

As the word (and meaning of) "science" stems from Latin, I'll now mildly one-up you with the Harper Collins Latin Concise Dictionary:

scio, scire, scivi, scitum - vt to know; to have skill in; (with inf.) to know how to; quod ~iam as far as I know; -ito you may be sure
you should be able to see that "scio" means "to know" as in: facts and figures, mechanisms, practical applications, real-world causality and consequence. It is clearly NATURALISTIC in its denotation. This is backed up with the denotations of the related words sciens (knowing, with purpose, deliberate), scientia (knowledge, skill), scisco (to inquire, to learn, to question), scitor (to inquire), and seems to have been derived directly from scindo (to cut open, to divide, to part, to dissect). <
Let's compare the root meaning of science with the following alternative Latin words having bearing on this discussion:

cognosco, cognoscere, cognovi, cognitum - (vt)
to get to know, learn, understand; to know, recognize, identify; (law) to investigate; (military) to reconnoiter
As opposed to scire, this indicates "to know" in a general, vernacular sense, and "to know" in a philosophical sense, as from study of Hellenic ditherings - it is, after all, directly derived from Greek "gnosis"
It is a long step away from the pragmatic knowledge indicated by scio

cogito, cogitare, cogitavi, cogitatum - (vt, vi) to think, ponder, imagine; to feel disposed; to plan, intend

credo, credire, cerdidi, creditum - (vt, vi) to entrust, lend, have confidence in; to believe; to think, suppose; ~eres one would have thought

Now, look, fabian - the Romans were a brutally pragmatic people, and their language reflected this. THEY were wise enough to distinguish between knowledge based on hard practical facts and "the other kinds of (cough!) 'knowledge'" imputed in the airy omphaloskepticisms of the philosophers and the pronouncements of self-described religious authorities.

It is a pity that Webster was not so wise as the Romans, really - it is, but that is not my problem.

1,586 posted on 08/05/2006 3:13:43 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1584 | View Replies]

still waiting on three specific answers to three specific questions
PLACEMARKER

1,587 posted on 08/05/2006 3:25:23 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1586 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; King Prout
ID is even worse, as it does the same thing while pretending (unsuccessfully) to be a science.

Someone descirbed ID as "creationism dressed up in white lab vestments".

1,588 posted on 08/05/2006 5:07:24 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1556 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
...the presupposition that the earth is billions of years old and that the Flood of Noah's day never happened. ...

Observation, not presupposition. The Flood story in the Bible was known to be false by 1830 or so. There's just no way to reconcile the rocks and soils with such an occurence. Here's an interesting discussion of the geology in one place: Is Frenchman Mountain Evidence of Noah's Flood

1,589 posted on 08/05/2006 5:15:20 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1573 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American; Coyoteman

yep - "creationism in a lab-coat"

as to all this thread's buzzings about how science is something other than, well, yanno... SCIENCE:

Q: whaddaya get when you wrap a lab coat around a cow?
A: a cow in a lab coat, not a scientist.

as with Bovines, so with Ovines.


1,590 posted on 08/05/2006 5:20:45 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1588 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Sciolism might be an interesting word to trace.


1,591 posted on 08/05/2006 5:24:25 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1586 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

hrmn.
first principles: does that word actually exist in any modern language?


1,592 posted on 08/05/2006 5:26:41 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1591 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

ah:
"sciolism: A pretentious attitude of scholarship; superficial knowledgeability."


1,593 posted on 08/05/2006 5:27:33 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1591 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Apparently not in contemporary American. It was a common word a century ago, usually in the form sciolist or sciolism.


1,594 posted on 08/05/2006 5:28:25 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1592 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

appears to be from "sciolus" - smatterer


1,595 posted on 08/05/2006 5:29:00 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1591 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Aha! Not real far in meaning from sophism, and not far from dilettantism.


1,596 posted on 08/05/2006 5:29:57 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1593 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Smattering--how much Russian I know.


1,597 posted on 08/05/2006 5:31:16 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1595 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

sciolus is from "Late Latin"
I'm not familiar with Late or Church Latin - was taught on Virgil et alia


1,598 posted on 08/05/2006 5:31:30 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1595 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

actually, it has the flavor of a good epithet.
better than dilettante or sophist, it rolls off the tongue with bite.
I shall save, and savor, this word you have given me.
thanks.


1,599 posted on 08/05/2006 5:33:18 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1596 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

I have a similar problem with Homeric Greek.


1,600 posted on 08/05/2006 5:33:18 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1598 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,561-1,5801,581-1,6001,601-1,620 ... 1,701-1,719 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson