Free Republic Poll on Evolution

Free Republic ^ | 22 September 2006 | Vanity

[grey_whiskers]

You ain't no wise man on the mountain, and you could really benefit from a re-reading of Strunk and White.

Do you mean that part about the semen samples from those poor men frozen inside the stainless steel tank?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

I also am astounded by this silence...when no one objects to some claim, I then take it to mean, that the claim is endorsed by those remaining silent...perhaps some would object to my way, of regarding this silence, but heck, I can take it whatever way I want...

You are assuming that all those who are silent have heard the claim, and consider it worthy of refuting, instead of just rolling their eyes and ignoring it as nonsense.

Cheers!

[unlearner]

"Does this mean Astrology is 'scientific'?"

The Babylonian astronomers were performing a type of science. Obviously, how we define science today had not been rigidly defined and systematically categorized at that time. But they performed essential elements of science which include observing, measuring, calculating, and drawing logical conclusions.

Yes, myth can contribute to the formation and selection of hypotheses. Same thing goes for generally creative imagination - such as picturing one's self riding a light beam (Einstein). Myth and imagination are not barred from the process of scientific inquiry, and neither are the true myths of the Bible.

A theory can be formulated based on stories in the Bible, such as Noah's flood. Hydroplate theory is an example of this. Whether it is correct or not is not my main point of contention. The key issue being debated is whether or not someone can introduce a scientific hypothesis based on Biblical beliefs. The answer is YES.

Of course, for a theory to be scientific it must be testable. Because something is supposedly based on the Bible, it should not be automatically exempted from scrutiny even by those who believe the Bible. (1 John 4:1 supports this contention: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but test the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.")

So the answer is, astrology is not science, but it is not arbitrarily singled out for exclusion. We do not ignore the sky charts just because the person who made them had silly beliefs. Likewise, those who have Biblical beliefs should not have their ideas excluded from scientific testing just because they are held by Bible believers. Ocean maps were based on the foundational work of Matthew Fontaine Maury, father of modern oceanography, who searched for the "paths in the sea" referred to in the scriptures.

The Bible is not science. It is claimed to be revelation - a message from God. A theory based on the Bible could be falsified. This does not falsify the Bible. It falsifies a persons ideas and explanations. So, in this sense, the Bible can be held to be true axiomatically while allowing any theories derived from its contents to remain testable.

This is exactly the same position that naturalism holds for those who subscribe to its tenets. Naturalism is not unscientific, but it is also not science. You can formulate hypotheses and have this view of the world. But naturalism cannot be tested scientifically.

Those who say naturalism is equivalent to science confuse the role of empirical evidence with the role of hypotheses formation and selection. All science must by definition be empirically testable. Forming and selecting hypotheses are not bound by such limits. Otherwise we must throw out a great deal of Einstein's contributions because his thought experiments were not compliant with the laws of nature.

It is fair for the naturalists to ignore creationism as uninteresting because they feel pursuing this line of reasoning will not produce meaningful results (even though they have historically). (Intuitive decisions like this play a big role in science.) But it is unfair for them to say a Biblical view is inherently unscientific on the basis that it does not conform to their philosophy of naturalism. Some naturalists criticize faith in the Bible as being unscientific because it is not testable (which is true to the extent I have described), but simultaneously assert that naturalism cannot be expected to be tested. I insist that to be considered part of science, it must be testable.

Hypotheses based on the Bible, naturalism, or even outlandish myth, have the potential to be testable and become scientific theories. This does not mean that the underlying philosophical views (Biblical, naturalistic, or mythical) are science.

[js1138]

Somewhere in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice it is said "the devil can quote scripture for his purpose..." and I think it is that which FreedomProtector meant.

I suspect FP is afraid of mirrors.

[Thatcherite]

I think what editor is trying to get at here, is that sometimes there is a better way to health than throwing medical care at something--simply by maintaining health in the first place.

ES's own words are clear on the matter, and don't support your interpretation. He does appear to favour clean living and good diet but that is far from the end of the story.

[grey_whiskers]

ES's own words are clear on the matter, and don't support your interpretation. He does appear to favour clean living and good diet but that is far from the end of the story.

Like I said, I missed part of the thread. My interpretation was from what he said about the associated phytochemicals etc. often found in conjunction with vitamin C from whole food sources as opposed to within a pill.

I'll stand by and try to read more of the thread before attempting to put my *other* foot in my mouth, too :-)

Cheers!

[andysandmikesmom]

I have to disagree with you here...those who are silent, become suddenly silent when confronted with one of their fellow believers in something, who all of sudden comes out with some very strange ideas...all of a sudden, someone who has been very active on a thread, will just all of sudden disappear, just coincidentally, when someone whose opinion they happened to agree with, all of a sudden says something they did not expect...it happens way to often, that the 'silence' is noticed, as people run for cover...they have seen the claim, for sure, they just cannot and will not refute it publically...

[tomzz]

Dumb question here... Why would you want to lie about the numbers you're getting in this stupid poll on a smokey-room thread? I mean, the things been running 2-1 against you from day one and anybody can check it.

[.30Carbine]

I am asserting that peace is a worthy objective.

I have been asserting that apart from the Prince of Peace there is not now, never has been, and never will be peace - within a single man, between man and his Maker, between persons, or between nations. The only peace the world - the UN, as one unit of this sphere - has to offer is a false, temporary one. That's all the weapons Satan has, the twisting and mimicking of what is actually true.

A person on morphine might be considered to be at peace. But that is not peace.

A treaty of peace between nations - Israel and any who pledge peace with her, for example - as we have seen demonstrated time and again, is a very temporary and unreliable one.

The anitchrist is coming with great promises and even false signs and wonders of peace which men will swallow like morphine. After a mere 3 and a half years this greatest promise of worldly peace this worldly world and world-dwellers has ever bought into will be shown for what it really is: a lie. Much like Darwinism. Like Communism. Like Huxley's Utopia.

But the Peace Made With God In Christ Jesus at the cross is not false. It is true. And it will prove so in the end.

Truthful lips will be established forever,
But a lying tongue is only for a moment.
~Proverbs 12:19

[js1138]

I accept the fact that you reject the need for Christians to work for peace. Like the jihadis, you only live for the reward you expect in death.

This has nothing to do with my opinion of the UN, or whether I think it actually does any good.

What you are rejecting is the concept of attempting to reconcile differences without violence.

[.30Carbine]

I accept the fact that you reject the need for Christians to work for peace.

Where did I do that, lol?!

What you are rejecting is the concept of attempting to reconcile differences without violence.

Nay, what I reject is the idea that there can be reconciliation apart from Christ Jesus, God's Son.

[js1138]

I have not mentioned anything as abstract as reconciliation.

The absence or or reduced frequency of war is not a religious concept. It is basic national toilet training.

It may be presumptuous of me, but I suspect you get along with your neighbors without violence. You may be aware that not every neighborhood is like this.

You probably see kids who are not as as well behaved as yours. This is largely a matter of upbringing.

If your idea of Christianity is, "I've got mine; screw the kids with bad parents or those who live in bad neighborhoods," I am sorry for you. If you think being a Christian is taking care of yourself and not reaching out to others, then I feel sorry for you.

[.30Carbine]

I have not mentioned anything as abstract as reconciliation.

I quoted you directly. You wrote:

What you are rejecting is the concept of attempting to reconcile differences without violence.

The rest of your most recent post to me is only ifs, i.e. assumptions, accusations. So I will repeat:

What I reject is the idea that there can be reconciliation apart from Christ Jesus, God's Son.

[Quark2005]

In many cirles Islam is explicitly regarded as (at best) a heresy of Christianity and/or Judaism. (See for example Hillaire Belloc's The Great Heresies.)

But totalitarian dictatorships are not a "heresy" on biology...

True. I didn't intend for the analogy to be taken that far...only trying to imply that ideas aren't responsible for the consequences to which they are applied.

Even if Hitler did base his entire strategy for conquest off of Origin of the Species and the Descent of Man, it wouldn't imply those works are factually incorrect, any more than the theory of gravitation would be factually incorrect because some jerk pushed his grandmother down a stairwell.

[Quark2005]

You forgot that there are certain metaphysical underpinnings to the science, namely that there is now, and never has been, any interference or misunderstanding of the physical data; and that the laws of nature as currently observed, and extrapolated, have always held true -- at least to great enough of an extent that the findings remained consistent.

That is true - that's why I keep using the word consilience over and over again here; consilience between separate lines of data is essential when looking at information concerning the distant past, and why any science theory can only be considered as good as the consistency of its models and the veracity of its predictions.

[grey_whiskers]

Even if Hitler did base his entire strategy for conquest off of Origin of the Species and the Descent of Man, it wouldn't imply those works are factually incorrect, any more than the theory of gravitation would be factually incorrect because some jerk pushed his grandmother down a stairwell.

Try reading Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb.

By the end, he came across as saying (at least to me) that since nukes could be used to stop communism, nukes were a bad idea ;-)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

I have to disagree with you here...those who are silent, become suddenly silent when confronted with one of their fellow believers in something, who all of sudden comes out with some very strange ideas...all of a sudden, someone who has been very active on a thread, will just all of sudden disappear, just coincidentally, when someone whose opinion they happened to agree with, all of a sudden says something they did not expect..

Fair enough, as far as it goes. I thought you were claiming that "all members of a group holding view X" are *obligated* to shout down and/or disavow any moonbat statement made by any member of the group.

That would be so hard to implement, the claim looked like a setup.

I didn't realize you were castigating certain individuals ONLY.

Cheers!

[Quark2005]

Try reading Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb.

By the end, he came across as saying (at least to me) that since nukes could be used to stop communism, nukes were a bad idea ;-)

That's just a matter of personal opinion (with which I, along with about everyone on this forum disagrees). A more apt analogy to some of the attitudes around here would be Rhodes saying something like 'nukes could be used to stop communism, therefore the theories governing nuclear physics are junk science'.

[grey_whiskers]

A more apt analogy to some of the attitudes around here would be Rhodes saying something like 'nukes could be used to stop communism, therefore the theories governing nuclear physics are junk science'.

Yes, that would be a better analogy. As it happens, I was not trying to make an analogy, but a segue to another topic--that of the curious role of authority in science, even though argument from authority is logically invalid.

(Often people use argument from authority as a shortcut in science, i.e. "Van Vleck knows all about magnetism, so read his book and you're likely to find a refutation of your error. I'm too busy or lazy to look it up right now, so I'll just throw the name at you.") Let us call this "reference to" authority.

That works when the name cited really has investigated and covered a point in dispute, or could do it "in short order" if asked.

But when there are disagreements on philosophical *underpinnings*, or when one is borrowing prestige from one area to comment on another area, then the argument reverts to being classical "argument from authority" and loses validity.

Richard Rhodes (to my mind) did this by flaunting superior social and historical knowledge of the people involved in the Manhattan project to gain credence, and then using that credence to pronounce "Nukes are bad." But authority to make *that* statement does not necessarily derive from either connaître of the individual scientists at Los Alamos, nor savoir of the minutiae of neutron-capture cross sections as a function of density... But in the heat of crevo threads it's often hard to tell the difference between the legitimate "reference to" authority and the illegitimate "argument from" authority.

Cheers!

[js1138]

Do you have trouble applying the same word in different contexts?

Have you ever engaged in conversation?