Posted on 09/09/2007 5:17:43 AM PDT by PurpleMountains
Why is it that I often write about such subjects as Darwinism, liberalism, and the ACLU? It is because American society is engaged in a war between those who believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong – and those who hold more traditional views. Those who believe there is no such thing as right and wrong (whom Bill O’Reilly calls Secular-Progressives or SP’s) believe that the only thing that matters is what feels good, and that their behavior is nobody else’s business.
Although many people do not make the connection, this attitude and the behavior it promotes can be traced to Darwinian theory that we are all just accidental products of random happenings – in a straight line down to the dialectical materialism of Marx, Engels and Lenin – down to the communist and Nazi writings and exploits of Stalin, Mao and Hitler – and down to the ACLU and to modern liberalism.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
“Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.”
Well I can’t really contend with that definition because it squares with the scriptures I hold dear:
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are sen were not made of things which are visible.” Hebrew 11:1-3 New King James (NKJV)
“For we walk by faith, not by sight.” 2 Cor 5:7 NKJV
“holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience.”
1 Tim 3:9
Many more exist, but I will end with this passage:
“For I am NOT ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the jew first ad all for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith’. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all undogliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because , althought they knew God, they did not glorigy Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” Rom 1:16-21 NKJV
Scripture pretty much speaks for itself, and I won’t, in my poor power, attempt to make it clearer. He who has ears, let him hear.
Since you don’t think “creationists” can be scientists and still hold to supernatural explainations, I thought scripture would be the only logical thing to quote.
Take care.
Scientists are defined by an adherence to the scientific method. Anyone can play, but they must play by those rules.
If folks play by other rules, no problem. They just can't claim to be doing science when they do so.
You take care as well.
“Scientists are defined by an adherence to the scientific method. Anyone can play, but they must play by those rules.”
If by the “scientific method” you mean totally naturalistic causes, then this is impossible. The real Christian cannot “compartmentalize” truth - even if it can’t be strictly confined to the “scientific method.”
Whatever, go in peace.
Science assumes naturalism as a working hypothesis. By doing so, it ignores that which it cannot measure or observe in some manner. It leaves other assumptions to other fields. Is that such a horrible thing to do?
As such, science is not after TRVTH, or even Truth. Science is after explanations for what can be observed in the natural world.
Here is a good explanation of how science views truth (from a Cal Tech website):
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science--ed.] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Regarding your claim that "[a] large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds . . . and they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going," you now say "truth is never slander. It might be hard on the people who fit the mold, but it is not slander."
And regarding my assumption that you are utterly ignorant of the scientific literature, you say "some more of your arrogant assumptions BASED ON NOTHING, as usual."
Since you claim to have "truth" on your side, and you insist that my assumption of your ignorance is completely groundless, you are now presented with a golden opportunity to remove all reasonable doubt about your assertions. You are, after all, adamant about what is "proven" and "unproven" in science, so it seems that you would be equally adamant about "proving" your own point.
Take off after that NIH digital archive I linked in post 87. It's a downright handy compendium of working scientists and scientific publications. All you have to do is scan the archive and identify the scientists who are frauds and the "lying, twisted twaddle" they've published. Piece of cake.
I prefer to take you are your words posted in # 97 --
In short, no need to deal with you ever again.
Or are you a liar, as well as arrogant and boring?
Yeah, ok. I said I wouldn’t deal with you again and I did. Mea culpa. Happens on a discussion board (especially with someone as bristly and outspoken as you are). But let’s set our differences aside.
You have the chance here to prove once and for all that “[a] large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds . . . and they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going.” For the greater good, don’t you want to take up that challenge?
“As such, science is not after TRVTH, or even Truth. Science is after explanations for what can be observed in the natural world.”
Hence the dilemma. I, and others of my ilk, are open to understanding “what really is” (AKA the truth) whether it can be explained by naturalistic causes or not.
I am quite familiar with the idea that seeking for truth is a philosophy one, not necessarily a , in the strict sense, a scientific one. In the first Indiana Jones movie, the Harrison Ford character was teaching his archeology class and said words to the effect that, “we are here to discover facts, not find truth...if you are seeking after truth professor xxxxx of the philosopy departments class is down the hall.
Obviously, there are great dangers when one opens themselves to the supernaturnal as an explanation or cause; it is difficult to know where to draw the line and it can become a slippery slope. However, to make the determination that only the naturalistic can be used to determine causes, etc. is, in my opinion, also a slippery slope. I believe the character of Sherlock Holme’s dictum was “when the possible has been eliminated, then that only leaves the impossible.” I’m probably misquoting. :-)
Bottom line is that something has to give. This is a free society we live in, and a great many great thinkers are being disregarded, and often persecuted, because they can see the possibility, indeed the high probability, that something other than naturalistic mechanisms can explain the world, especially biological organisms. Of course, that is subject to great debate which we cannot solve here. As you are well aware.
Obviously, there are great dangers when one opens themselves to the supernaturnal as an explanation or cause; it is difficult to know where to draw the line and it can become a slippery slope. However, to make the determination that only the naturalistic can be used to determine causes, etc. is, in my opinion, also a slippery slope. I believe the character of Sherlock Holme’s dictum was “when the possible has been eliminated, then that only leaves the impossible.” I’m probably misquoting. :-)
Bottom line is that something has to give. This is a free society we live in, and a great many great thinkers are being disregarded, and often persecuted, because they can see the possibility, indeed the high probability, that something other than naturalistic mechanisms can explain the world, especially biological organisms. Of course, that is subject to great debate which we cannot solve here. As you are well aware.
"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."Nobody is stopping those who want to seek for truth from seeking all they want. They have a lot of fields within which to explore to their heart's content. Philosophy and theology are two such fields.
The problem is that these folks also want to change science from what it is to something that it is not.
Why can't they just leave science alone?
Because it comes up with inconvenient answers that some folks can't handle, so they are out to destroy several fields of science so that they can live in their own made-up world. At least that's the way it seems sometimes.
You have the chance here to prove once and for all that “[a] large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds . . . and they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going.”
Without going into a million things that have already been shown dozens of times, let me recommend that you spend some time going through the Evolution/Creation/Intelligent Design threads on this board. It should clearly illustrate to you the almolst hysterical lengths that a large segment of the evolution crown will go to deny any chance that any other alternatives might exist to explain, partially explain, or assist in explaining the phenomona of of life and the changes therein.
Then ask yourself: why the frantic denial and fierce door slamming against all possiblilities that do not slavishly follow their pet theories. For the greater good, don’t you want to take up that challenge?
Nope. I couldn't possibly care less about the greater good as it is defined these days. And don't ask me what that means --if you don't know, you aren't half as bright as some people think you are.
Why can’t we just leave each other alone? A recent article in Livescience claimed there were two genetic mutations in man, one a couple of hundred thousand years ago, and another 5,000 to 10,000 years ago that gave rise to present day man. Zechariah Sitchin claims it was the Annunaki that purposely crossbred with apeman to come up with us, Robert Monroe has some interesting things to say about our true nature, as well as Carlos Casteneda, maybe there is the Omnipotent Being. The list goes on. Revel and roll in the magic and mystery of Life, seek your own truth, fact, or theory, but please, keep it to yourself.
They can propose theories mil the cows come home, but most theories still hang out there in the ether while most facts cannot even be explained.
Keep it to ourselves? FR and all of the other internet chat rooms would die a quick death if we did that!
ps. I actually met Carlos Casteneda many years ago at UCLA.
Theories are designed to explain facts. Here is a good definition:
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]Here is another good quote that helps explain the difference between fact and theory:
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
Dave, go back and try again. That post is not worth a response.
Yeah, I know, and healthy debate is great, and don’t you wish sometimes that Adam and Eve would’ve just taken one more bite from that apple?
“Why can’t they just leave science alone?”
“Because it comes up with inconvenient answers that some folks can’t handle, so they are out to destroy several fields of science so that they can live in their own made-up world. At least that’s the way it seems sometimes.”
You answer your first question with your second answer. Although, I must say I find “made-up world” somewhat harsh. Also, I would substitute the word “contradictory” for “inconveinent.”
You need to be a little more realistic in regards to persons of faith being in science. They have been and will continue to be there. You cannot expect them to exactly conform to the classic definition of the scientific method, it just isn’t going to happen, and this is a free country. If you should decide to start dabbling in theology and make up your own religon (i.e. L. Ron Hubbard), nothing stops you. Ultimately, no one in any field, owns it. That is a reality, even if it is difficult to deal with for the scientific puritan.
“Because it comes up with inconvenient answers that some folks can’t handle, so they are out to destroy several fields of science so that they can live in their own made-up world. At least that’s the way it seems sometimes.”
You answer your first question with your second answer. Although, I must say I find “made-up world” somewhat harsh. Also, I would substitute the word “contradictory” for “inconveinent.”
You need to be a little more realistic in regards to persons of faith being in science. They have been and will continue to be there. You cannot expect them to exactly conform to the classic definition of the scientific method, it just isn’t going to happen, and this is a free country. If you should decide to start dabbling in theology and make up your own religon (i.e. L. Ron Hubbard), nothing stops you. Ultimately, no one in any field, owns it. That is a reality, even if it is difficult to deal with for the scientific puritan.
You don't like "made-up?" Without the empiricism of science, you are left with mysticism, scripture, revelation and the like as the source of this other field of knowledge.
And you don't like "inconvenient?" Well, that's what it is. Some folks like a young earth, but science has all of those inconvenient facts showing that the earth is old. Some folks believe in a global flood about 4350 years ago, but science has all of those inconvenient facts showing that there was no such flood.
As for people of faith in science, sorry--there is only one way to do science and that is by following the scientific method. When one believes that the earth is about 6,000 years old and distorts scientific fact and theory in order to make things come out that way, that is not science--it does not follow the scientific method. When one, as we have seen on these very threads, states that the highest form of knowledge is "divine revelation," one ceases to do science.
You may not like this, but science is defined by its method. Change the method and it is no longer science.
Some things stay the same, even in this relativistic age.
Wait a minute. This is an internet discussion board. A principally political one at that. To my knowledge, no one here receives a grant to post their opinion, and the opinions posted here can't remotely be considered "publications."
Your comment that “[a] large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds . . . and they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going,” is quite obviously directed at working scientists who receive grants for their research and publish their results in scientific journals.
The NIH digital archive that I linked in post 87 is a mother-load of scientific publications by grant-receiving scientists. If there is evidentiary support for your assertion, it will be found there, not here.
It should clearly illustrate to you the almolst hysterical lengths that a large segment of the evolution crown will go to deny any chance that any other alternatives might exist to explain, partially explain, or assist in explaining the phenomona of of life and the changes therein.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. No one is stopping you (or can stop you) from posting on this board any "other alternatives [that] might exist to explain, partially explain, or assist in explaining the phenomona of life and the changes therein." Indeed, this board is particularly friendly to evolutionary alternatives (and often quite hostile to evolution supporters), and a great many folks post their alternative views at considerable length.
Now back on topic. In light of your apparent opinion that proponents of evolutionary alternatives are victimized by evolution supporters, this seems to be a stellar opportunity for you to seize the initiative and post the evidentiary support for your particular alternative view.
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.