Posted on 12/30/2008 3:42:31 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Information scientist, author and evangelist, Dr Werner Gitt, a close friend of CMI, told us that on 23 October 2008 he was subjected to the most strident opposition he had ever encountered...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
I simply cannot be part of political party that has geocentrists and other luddites in large numbers.
While I join you in vehemently disagreeing with those who want to interject creationism into public schools, it has to be put into perspective. There are only two realistic choices for political affiliation in the USA, and the Democratic party represents a weak national defense, gun control, and confiscatory tax policies.
As much as I support real science, the presentation of evolution in public schools simply doesn't compare as an issue.
I believe being "conservative" in a political context implies supporting those principles, and thus opposing imposition of theocracy regardless of the particular religion involved.
Sharia law and Islamic theocracy is an affont to those principles, and I would oppose it, with force if necessary.
The Founding Fathers didn't create the universe. They are overruled by a superior authority. Besides, do you think there's a different set of rules for every country depending on the beliefs of its founders?
I believe being "conservative" in a political context implies supporting those principles, and thus opposing imposition of theocracy regardless of the particular religion involved.
Bully for you.
Sharia law and Islamic theocracy is an affont to those principles, and I would oppose it, with force if necessary.
Then I owe you an apology on that issue. I have become aware that some of the FR atheists share their leftist brethren's double-standard when it comes to "politically correct" religions. If you are not one of these, then you are to be commended for your consistency.
Look . . . you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. I suggest we end this argument (which you started, btw).
At any rate, I may be a Theocrat, but I'm not going to be the one to impose Theocracy on the world. You're arguing with the wrong person. I suggest you wait till Mashiach comes and argue with him.
It's not that I consider it to be fallacious. It is fallacious and is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
If you assume that evolution is true, and then assume that everything that you see is proof that evolution is true, you have committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
I didn't expect a simply query about the term "Dolly Llama" to evoke such a defensive response.
Why isn’t evolution the best explanation for the current diversity of life on this planet?
If you want to use 'inference to the best explanation', you still have to assume that philosophical naturalism is true. Usually by committing the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with the assumption of philosophical naturalism.
Here, read this. As you can see, the attitude has a lengthy history. With respect to naturalism or monism masquerading as science, hardly anything has changed since 1887.
Funny, isn't it? The arguments against philosophical naturalism have been known for a long time, yet people haven't been taught about them by their naturalistic teachers for a long time. So long that they can't even comprehend them when confronted.
Interesting how science threads get steered into the junkpiles of religion, philosophy and politics when the opponents run out of science.
Are there any arguments against methodological naturalism, other than to deny it exists?
Ok, when does theory become law (see Isaac Newton's theory of gravity which became the laws of gravity)?
Never. Laws precede theories. Theories provide explanations of the behaviour which laws map.
Einstein challenged the law of gravity by saying matter is not pulled, it is pushed. I may be wrong (I don't think I am wrong though), but I don't think this theory has been tested to proof and it remains a theory.If you thought you were wrong, you wouldn't be wrong, because you are wrong.
Not pulled or pushed, but twisted.
This one appears to have been about politics from the outset, based on the article. Judging by the signs the protestors are holding up, they don't look like they were there to address any scientific issues. The only "science" involved seems to be as a vehicle to carry implications of "guilt by association".
Maybe because religion, philosophy and politics never settle anything
The text you quoted clearly referred to "philosophical naturalism" and yet you wrote "methodological naturalism".
Are you committing the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism again?
And that text was in response to an unspecified reference to "naturalism", the assumption apparently having been made that any reference to naturalism must mean philosophical naturalism.
How does one go about testing for God in a scientific way?
I never did. I don't conflate methodolical naturalism with philosophical naturalism.
For a Christian, God is Truth and we respect the Revelation that He has given us known as the bible. For Judaism, it's Torah, living water. The other big difference is that you are trying to compare spiritual matters with material ones. They are two very different realities
If a rabbi somewhere is studying theology and sees an idea that expresses a reality spiritually it is his every right to hold and teach the view. For you, for instance, to demand that he or anyone else, quit having ideas that you can't understand, is pretty nervy to say the least.
Your post included quoted text from me that clearly said 'philosophical naturalism'. You then referred to 'methodological naturalism' which is a completely different thing. Since I clearly referred to 'philosophical naturalism' and you responded with 'methodological naturalism', it is obvious that you got confused.
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.