"What I do not understand is why those of such a faith do not simply choose to ignore science, as they have deemed it irrelevant, rather than to launch a campaign to change the nature of science as if it could be made compatible with their faith. "
Wow. Very impressive 2000+ post thread, now in the Smokey Back Room. But I wonder, are you any closer to getting your questioned answered that was in post #1?
Here are a couple of things I would suggest you consider:
You have bought hook line and sinker the notion called 'the nature of science'. I would suggest you review this article discussing something called the cartesian split. It is quite interesting.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1421661/posts
But, I would also suggest you consider something a bit simpler:
GUTS: the Grand Unified Theory of Sex (or why the T.o.Evolution HAS to be, at least, partly, wrong).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1316020/posts?page=164#164
I still think the fight in the USA over science and Religion is really about sex and how it is experienced. And I really think the Europe has experienced the ...ahem, history, it has b/c of a LACK of attention to this issue.
Thanks for your posting and the links, which I've read with interest.
To be honest, I came to regret posting this article when I saw some of the flaming that erupted, although there has been some worthwhile info and insights as well.
As for the 'Cartesian' split; it is an interesting essay on philosophy, but as some posters on that thread have noted, it doesn't go very far. Insofar as such a 'split' occurred, it did not do so because of a philosophical decision (by Descartes or anyone else), but arose throught the continuing successes of materialistic explanations over supernatural ones: where we previously saw the actions of gods in thunder, earthquakes, and comets, science replaced irrational fears with testable truths. One does not (or at least, should not) lend science credibility as an act of 'faith,' (as some have claimed does happen), but neither can one reasonably deny science its due: its record of success is remarkable. I would not characterise this as buying into the nature of science 'hook, line, and sinker,' but simply as an acknowledgement of science's inconvertible achievements.
Now, if you wish to argue that there is meaningful knowledge and indeed "truth" which is not accessible to science, I would utterly agree with you--and I think you might be surprised by the number of scientists who are of similar mind. But that is not at all the same as attempting to change the proven and successful methodology of science, particularly when there is no agreed methodological alternative that delivers results.
As for your essay on G.U.T.S.; first, the strength of your marriage is certainly laudable, and your courage in writing here is to be commended. I deeply hold, as you do, an unshakeable belief in the sanctity of marriage, and consider my wife and children the greatest blessings which has been bestowed upon me--but this is a matter of faith, not science for me! But I am afraid I do not at all see the bearing your essay has on the scientific validity of ToE
I still think the fight in the USA over science and Religion is really about sex and how it is experienced. And I really think the Europe has experienced the ...ahem, history, it has b/c of a LACK of attention to this issue.
Without wishing to be provocative, I will say that I do get the impression, from some postings (not yours) that some unhealthy obsession with this topic is indeed one of the culprits. Someone (can't recall whom, will try to run the quote down) once defined a Puritain as 'someone who was desperately worried that somewhere, someone was enjoying himself.'
As for the 'history' experienced by Europe: far, far too much European history is in fact the history of religious wars of intolerance, and it rumbles on and on. Belatedly, we are finally, in the UK, taking measures against mullahs who have openly preached murder, as they are the current threat, but one cannot really find a period in the last 1000 years where Europe has not been filled with hatred wearing the mask of religion. That does not at all undermine my own Christian faith, which is perfectly robust, but it does give me meaningful challenges in how I live my faith.
Thanks again for your posting, a thought-provoking one amidst a lot of smoke and dust!
That was a long essay to wade through, and I still don't understand how this vitiates against evolution. Is your point that truthfulness is a less useful way invest your procreation energy than deceit? If so, I doubt it. It's likely that humans are capable of both, because both have proved to be good strategies in one environment or another. I also am not hugely pursuaded about most of your minor points. I don't think the ability of males to be aroused is a surefire indicator of truthfulness or fidelity. In fact, that sort of strikes me as the kind of misty-eyed science you get from ed-school-trained kindergarten teachers with sheltered, quasi-victorian upbringings.