Posted on 04/29/2008 10:20:32 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Postmodernism At Work
The following two statements are parts of comments made on the Free Republic forum in response to Pamela Hewitt's "Problems of Evolution."
"Nothing in Science is ever “proven”, just provisionally accepted pending further data." (—allmendream)
All science is tentative, and nothing is ever proved! (—Coyoteman)
Normally, I would not bother with such mindless statements, but they just happen to perfectly exemplify the post-modernist nonsense that is being taught in today's colleges and universities. It is why we are living in the age of gullibility. Do not suppose this is just ignorance, however. These things are being taught with a purpose. The idea is, if you convince people nothing is ever certain, proved, or absolute, you can then put over just anything and call it science.
If "nothing in science is ever proven:"
I must assume these two have "living wills" specifying that cardioversion or defibrillation is not to be used on them since the principle of using electricity to convert a fibrillaing heart to a sinus rhythm has never been proved.
I am going to feel very sorry for these two if they ever need an operation, since the efficacy of anesthesia (once a great scientific controversy) has never been proved.
And they must really be missing out on all those television programs and phone calls transmitted by satellites launched into orbit around the earth's equator at a distance of about 22,300 miles which maintain a stationary position over the earth, by maintaining an orbital speed of approximately 6000 miles per hour, because, according to them, the physical principles such satellites are based on have never been proved.
They must only use electricity if it does not come from nuclear power plants, since the scientific principles describing a sustained chain nuclear reaction have never been proved. (Maybe they use no electricity at all, since they are sure the theory of combustion and Ohm's law have never been proved either.)
Nor must they use computers, or any other electronic devices that would not and could not work if the theories of electronics and quantum mechanics they are based on were not proved. They must avoid all Sky Scrapers because the laws of physics which are the basis of their engineering from the materials used to the structural design would fail if those physical principles were mere unproven hypotheses which, according to them, they are.
I do not know what planet these two live on, but on this planet the principle of an electric current being generated simply by moving a magnet in a coil of wire discovered by Michael Faraday, who was considered a charlatan by his contemporaries, has been proved. The unbelieved assertions by Nikola Tesla and Guglielmo Marconi that wireless communication is possible, has been proved.
What kind of demented mind can insist that nothing in science has been proved? One that assumes things without evidence, based on nothing more than the fact someone does not accept their particular faith. Here is the evidence (a concept totally foreign to such second-hand minds).
"Being a nurse doesn't QUALIFY one, in and of itself, to make an academic argument on Evolution or Genetics. ... Nothing better than an educated layman."
The fact that the "nurse" happens to be a degreed geneticist who has both worked in the field and lectured in it as well, these dimwits did not bother to discover. Evidence is not something they care about, since their cherished faith is being threatened by objective questions their little minds are incapable of answering.
They are dripping with hubris and patent snobbery, exactly like those "scientists" who were publishing papers proving heavier-than-air human flight was impossible while two laymen, who were obviously not educated well enough to learn what they were doing was "scientifically" impossible, were too busy flying to notice. According to these two jokers, the possibility of heavier-than-air human flight has never been proved. They're still waiting for, "further data."
If you believe nothing in science has been proved, it makes it easy to swallow totally made up stories such as the following:
"Evolutionary Biology has unequivocally established that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor over the last 3.5 billion years;" [From Rutgers University]
What's the difference between "unequivocally established" and "proved?" In normal English, even as spoken by scientists, there is no difference; but these story tellers can always say they never said it was "proved" we all came from a common ancestor. It's meant to deceive and gain unquestioned acceptance.
And it's pure fiction. There is no way such a thing could possibly be established. If evolution could happen once, there is nothing in reason or evidence that even suggests it could not happen more than once or even hundreds or thousands of times; but it's happening more than once would not fit their story, so just ignore that fact and present your story as, "unequivocally established," and all the gullible academics will swallow it whole.
So then, please expound upon how the current model is in error. Or is attacking me all you came to do?
==So then, please expound upon how the current model is in error. Or is attacking me all you came to do?
I extended the olive branch and you have refused it. If memory serves, I have already explained my position to you on numerous occasions. Indeed, you even remembered that I don’t suscribe to geocentrism.
So what is the harm in repeating yourself, if indeed you have been clear previously about your beliefs?
Please expound upon how the current astrological model is in error and how what you subscribe to is “like geocentricism”; I had in fact forgotten that you did not completely embrace geocentricism as you were probably as evasive about what you believe then as you are now.
Make that “Astronomical model”; as I am not interested in astrology. My mistake.
Well, unfortunately, I’m not the one who wrote the article, but I have my doubts that the author will be interested in, what I’m sure, she would consider a sophomoric debate about a subject that she has spent a large part of her professional life doing.
For my part, there is nothing to debate. Nothing can be called science about which every so-called science in the field has a different hypothesis, and which changes it’s direction as often as most of us change our underwear.
In fact, to debate an evolutionist grants them a kind of authenticity, implying there made up stories are really worth debating. They aren’t, so I doubt if there will be a debate.
Thanks for the good comment and confidence.
Hank
I look forward to it, yet am not as yet holding my breath. Her errors were manifold and fundamental and betrayed a lack of basic knowledge about the subject; how does one defend basic and fundamental errors?
She’s a nurse
There will be no debate because your hero is ill informed.
Nothing wrong with being a nurse. Plenty wrong with being wrong.
this is true. She is a misguided nurse. Nurse=good. Misguided=wrong
pure poetry
This is my response.
Just a test of you moral courage. Weatherwax has had her posting privelges removed, it says because she is a “troll.” If are truly honest men, you will write Admin Mod and ask that her previledges be restored—you know she is not a troll. Are you so afraid of the truth?
I know what you will do, or should I say, not do. Moral cowardice must be awful to live with.
Hank
Actually, in my view it's quit the other way around. But I will put that aside for the moment.
==Please expound upon how the current astrological model is in error and how what you subscribe to is “like geocentricism”
In “The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time,” Hawking and Ellis admit that a crucial component of their cosmological model is based on an “admixture of ideology,” which, as Dr. Humphreys points out, is another way of saying it “is not warranted by observations.” Hawking and Ellis call this ideology the Copernican principle, but in reality, it couldn't be further from what Copernicus actually believed. Copernicus did indeed posit that the earth was not the center of our solar system, but he also held that our solar system was either at or near the center of the universe. Hawking et al, on the other hand, put forward Bondi’s badly misnamed Copernican principle, which demotes our solar system (indeed our entire galaxy) to a position that is not “specially distinguished in any way”...and without a shred of evidence to back up such a momentous assumption. Thus, in the case of Big Bang cosmology, we find that Evo Big Bangers have inserted a principle that is based on their a priori faith commitments rather than empirical scientific observation. What Dr. Humphreys has done is turn the Copernican principle on its head based on biblical passages that suggest that God created the universe with a center. He then plugged this assumption into Einstein's theory of General Relativity, and found that gravitational time dilation allows for both extremely young and extremely old galaxies that owe their existence to the exact same creation event. Stephen Hawkings et al ASSUME that the universe has no center based on the observation that the universe appears spacially homogonous in every direction. But again, this is a massive assumption, for the universe would appear the exact same way if we occupied a spot at or near its center. I will leave which model makes superior predictions for another discussion.
Hank,
I must say, if indeed so, weatherwax is one of the most decent ‘trolls’ around here.
(More decent than some of the Evolutionists.)
And no, I don’t buy it, not for one nano-second.
Well perhaps it was her tendency to refer to herself in the third person that the admin mods found objectionable.
I have no objection to her continued posting, in fact I was eagerly awaiting her defense of her numerous errors, perhaps after that she could explain how up is down and blue is really purple.
What in the Bible makes you think that we necessitate a geographically central location in order to be first in God's heart?
Please refrain from asking deliberately misleading questions. In the meantime....Do you think the insertion of the Copernican principle into Big Bang cosmology was warranted by empirical observation?
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.