Posted on 03/29/2008 6:54:19 PM PDT by wastedpotential
Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.
Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.
We believe most Americans
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
If you are offended, then just read the first part of my replies. After all, we post more to the Lurkers than to one another.
Whatever.
I have a low tolerance for pseudo-scientific nonsense, and wrapping it in religious terms doesn't make it either more intelligent, scientific, or rational, nor does it even make it interesting.
The western world left pseudo-intellectual mystical explanations behind several hundred years ago with the discovery of science and the Enlightenment. These musings are more of a curiosity now, to be noted but not stared at.
Your discussion provides an interesting example of one of Burnham's laws, "Who says A, must say B." One of the most useful applications of this "law" is that it allows us to look at the practical implications of statements (A) which, in and of themselves, are not necessarily objectionable; and to see if the implications (B) are reasonable.
For example, one of the common arguments against ID theories is that they're "not scientific," apparently because it's supposedly impossible to tell the difference between naturalistic and "designed" effects. And yet, by that standard, the entire biotech industry is "not scientific," which is of course preposterous. This doesn't "prove" ID, of course, but it does neatly dispose of that popular argument against it.
You point out very nicely that there is an apparent necessity of some arguments to divorce mathematics from physical reality. I suspect the underlying motivation for this is largely emotional, rather than logical: for there to be a connection between mathematics and physical reality, is to suggest that there is a "reality" separate and above what we can observe. This is at least a necessary condition for admitting the existence of God. And that's a troublesome proposition for those who would argue that God (if there even is a God) plays no active role in the universe.
In essence, the debate is over whether mathematics is a process of invention, or one of discovery. The "dismissal of math" (the 'A' of Burnham's law) basically defines math as a series of "invented tools" that are developed to explain observed phenomena. And so by that standard, the 'B' must be that mathematics has no inherent physical meaning -- and thus, mathematical predictions of as-yet unobserved physical events are not meaningful. And it's stated baldly in the statement you quoted above: "Mathematical models and calculations are only useful if they accurately and correctly represent the data."
And yet this clearly fails to account for the fact that predictive mathematical theories are often developed well in advance of the observational evidence that confirms them (Einstein's gravitational theories being an obvious example). And think of the billions spent on particle accelerators which are often justified on the basis of searching for particles predicted by mathematical theories....
And, as you also point out, there are many examples of "interesting mathematical results" that have no immediate application, and yet just happen to drop nicely into place at some later point, in some complex physial theory.
The (B) statement that "mathematical models and calculations are only useful if they accurately and correctly represent the data," is clearly at odds with the practice of science. "The Data" are very often collected in response to the predictions, rather than the other way around. That particular (B) ends up being preposterous!
Well neither are you. You are doing argumentation. Which I believe, is a philosophical pursuit.
And yet you said, Mathematical models and calculations are only useful if they accurately and correctly represent the data. What you're essentially saying is that mathematics are useless without pre-existing data -- which pretty rejects a very large segment of modern scientific practice, in which the data are collected in order to confirm or invalidate mathematical predictions.
You might want to be a bit more careful about how you toss around charges of "pseudo-intellectual mystical explanations."
But the words of God cannot be discerned by the carnal mind. The ones Christ is addressing below were physically hearing Him (pressure waves, sound) but they could not spiritually hear Him.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. – I Corinthians 1:19-25
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. – Matthew 22:29
And yet you said, Mathematical models and calculations are only useful if they accurately and correctly represent the data. What you're essentially saying is that mathematics are useless without pre-existing data -- which pretty rejects a very large segment of modern scientific practice, in which the data are collected in order to confirm or invalidate mathematical predictions.
You might want to be a bit more careful about how you toss around charges of "pseudo-intellectual mystical explanations."
Indeed, why would we put so much time and money into CERN and Fermilab if not to investigate the mathematical theories? And how can we not hold biotech theories to same scrutiny as the ID hypothesis? Excellent points, all.
There must be some satisfaction for one so engrossed in sounding the negative, continuously.
I have learned that it takes faith to figure you may make it home after a trip from point "A" to point "B" and back again.. Otherwise why leave the house.. to certain death..
Silly is in the eye of the semanticist.. or in the "legend and myth" of science..
But faith doesn't guarantee you will make it, so I hardly see how it adds any comfort to a paranoid personality.
Every thing we do includes some risk of failure or danger. Everyone has a personal level of comfort with risk. You seem to fear commonplace levels of risk -- an odd position for someone who sees death as a beginning of something better. Wouldn't life be simpler if you learned about reality and accepted the unforeseeable as unforeseeable?
Good grief Coyoteman, that statement is positively anhistorical. Science got its beginning from the pre-Socratics of classical Greece.
Show some courage.. there may be people out to get you but it does not follow that they hate you.. Maybe you've won some kind of lottery.. Have a little faith..
While empirical investigations of the natural world have been described since antiquity (for example, by Aristotle), and scientific methods have been employed since the Middle Ages (for example, by Ibn al-Haytham and Roger Bacon), the dawn of modern science is generally traced back to the early modern period, during what is known as the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries.Scientific methods are considered to be so fundamental to modern science that some — especially philosophers of science and practicing scientists — consider earlier inquiries into nature to be pre-scientific. Traditionally, historians of science have defined science sufficiently broadly to include those inquiries.
Now if you'll excuse me I have more important things to do (Thursday is the day I dust my dental floss collection).
Did it ever occure to you that those sites accusations and explanations were lies based on nothign more substantial than biased opinion? Each one of htose articles has been refuted and exposed for the bias and fluff they contain. It appears that you accept opinion over actual science, and base your accusations on nothing but irrelevent opinion.
[[I have a low tolerance for pseudo-scientific nonsense,]]
Bull crap- what you have a low tolorance for is science that doesn’t agree with your opinion about origins and macroevolution.
[[The western world left pseudo-intellectual mystical explanations behind several hundred years ago with the discovery of science and the Enlightenment.]]
You keep telling yourself that- all the while clinging tenaciously to fantasy scenarios dreamed up by Macroevolutionists desperate to shove the square pegs into the round holes by inventing processes that they claim happened in environments they have no way of knowing about nor any hope of scientifically reproducing
[[Answers in Genesis repeats the blue-green algae lie]]
“Clearly, they intended to “deceive or give a wrong impression” regarding what Dr Schopf said. They lied, and an acknowledgement and correction should be forthcoming posthaste.”
Answer to that claim from AIG: “I know we are fallible, being human. But I think you know better than to think that we would deliberately lie ... We do not engage in “fabrications”, but if there is something in our publications that is in (inadvertent) error, a correction will be forthcoming in due course”
It’s nice that you and that site you listed both can escape the real world and delve into hte minds and see the intentions of of the poster at AIG and determine with absolute certainty their real intentions- you’ve missed your calling- you should call the psychic hotline and tell them you and hte site you listed can read minds and determine absolutes and intentions-
From your second link Serfati states “For example, since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis”
And the site you list claims he ‘lied’ when Serfati’s old article predated more complete finds. It amazes me how quickly folks liek you glom onto mere opinion and speculation and hold it up as absolute truth- the article even mentioned that Serfati might not have been aware of the later finds, but yet the site STILL called him a liar- this is a FALSE accusation dread- yet you hold it up as though this one article refutes everythign AIG has written scientifically, based on nothing but your owen bias and predjudices.
Would you like me to start posting the BLATANT LIES by sites such as talk-origins, Panda’s thumb, and others? Because I guaruntee you the few gaffs presented by sites liek AIG do NOT rise to the level of deceit and dishonesty of the sites like Talkorigins
so let me get this straight- you’re ‘refuting’ all the science on AIG based on rediculous petty accusations and opinions by other sites? Swell- I asked you to show all the science on their sites was, as you say, “shi+”, but you show me excamples where mistakes were made, or knowledge abotu LATER finds was unknown, and you claim that these entirely acceptable and expectable falible gaffs somewhow dismantle all the science that has ever been presented on AIG and other Christian sites? Lol- if thaT’s the best you can do to show the site is nothign but “shi+” as you claim- then you fail to show anythiogn of the sort I’m afraid. Evidently, in your mind- sites that oppose your belief about Macroevolution aren’t afforded the right ot make mistakes or miss information, (yet somehow, you give much liberty to sites that support your belief in regards to being factually incorrect and yes, even outright lying)
Head on over to Trueorigins.org to find out the full extent of outright lies posted on ‘science’ sites liek talkorigins- it aint pretty- yet you’ll fully excuse sites liek talkorigins while jumping on sites liek AIG for making mistakes? Groovey- nope- no bais going on here
[[Wouldn’t life be simpler if you learned about reality and accepted the unforeseeable as unforeseeable?]]
Suppose you are a child, and suppose your father says “Get in the car- we’re going someplace” Wouldn’t you want to know where you’re going?
Now suppose the destination could be disneyland, or it could be prison- you have no way of knowing which. Your father could very well drop you off at some Hell-hole, tell a guard to lock you up forever, and tell the guard he never wants to see you again- OR- he could bring you to disneyland for a week of fun and games and enjoyment- but you, apparently, want no description about the future and you want us to think life is better when the details are left out?
Now suppose you’re on the ride to a destination and your father tells you that if you’ll just beleive him, trust him, you’ll go to disneyland, and that he will personally confirm to you during hte ride that you’re indeed goign to go there by showing you evidences that he will reveal to you personally during hte ride- but if you refuse, you’ll go to a dungeon somewhere- never to be seen again- all alone, isolated- for an eternity of suffering? What is the prudent thing to do? Beleive or disbelieve? Trust or distrust? Accept the fact that your pop will reveal truths to you? Or refuse to accept that He will do as He said, and refuse to believe He is trustworthy?
Simple isn’t always better- especially when hte stakes are so high.
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.