How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

[PurpleMountains]

All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.

[Mr. Silverback]

How is it a loaded question to ask you if the quotes in an article indicate that the people who said the quotes have a certain point of view? If a guy says that the best thing scientists could do for civilization (better than germ theory, modern medicine, advanced farming, the space program, etc.) would be to push religion out of the way, it's a loaded question for me to ask if he might be into scientism? Would it be a loaded question if I asked you if Sarah Palin likes small towns? Good grief.

Loaded questions are designed to trick people. What do you think I'm trying to trick you into when I ask if these folks appear to be into scientism?

Your position appears to be that if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's not a duck. Plenty of tactics, not much logic.

Speaking of ducks, it appears that this...

...is your current position. Of course, if I was advancing the idea that it's unwarranted to call Weinberg a follower of scientism, I'd be a little nervous, too.

[Mr. Silverback]

I’d like to see the so-called ‘evidence’ that God put Adam and Eve in a garden of Eden. Tell me, were they in the caveman form and what race were they? How old were they when he dropped them here?

Are you a Christian?

[tacticalogic]

How is it a loaded question to ask you if the quotes in an article indicate that the people who said the quotes have a certain point of view?

It might not have been if that's what had been asked.

What was asked was whether I had any doubt that they have a certain point of view, and that view being expressed in ambiguous terms that have resisted being defined. That is a substantially different proposition.

[Mr. Silverback]

What was asked was whether I had any doubt that they have a certain point of view, and that view being expressed in ambiguous terms that have resisted being defined. That is a substantially different proposition.

I think the idea of authority in this context was defined very well by me, but it didn't fit with your idea that to believe these folks are into scientism is the same as creating and baptizing them into a religion.

But OK, we'll play it your way: Is it warranted to believe that a person who says weakening the "nightmare" hold of religion would be the greatest thing scientists have ever done is a believer in scientism?

[tacticalogic]

Is it warranted to believe that a person who says weakening the "nightmare" hold of religion would be the greatest thing scientists have ever done is a believer in scientism?

Not necessarily. I've met at least one person who's bitter about religion in general for reasons that have nothing to do with science or "scientism".

[Mr. Silverback]

But why would he specifically call on scientists to do this work?

[Mr. Silverback]

But why would he specifically call on scientists to do this work?

It’s not like I’m accusing Madeline Murray O’Hair or Larry Flynt of scientism. The man in question was a scientist calling on scientists to do something that would be a greater achievement than all the real scientific work up to now. That’s different from just any old rant against religion.

[tacticalogic]

But why would he specifically call on scientists to do this work?

He might say it if he was propmted to express an opinion about that specifically in response to a question. It's impossible to say without knowing the context surrounding the statement.

[tacticalogic]

The man in question was a scientist calling on scientists to do something that would be a greater achievement than all the real scientific work up to now. That’s different from just any old rant against religion.

As I recall, there were originally several people in question.

[Mr. Silverback]

So what?

If you wish, comment only on Weinberg. If you wish, comment on them all. But don’t keep hiding under the desk and pretending it’s my fault you won’t come out.

[tacticalogic]

If you wish, comment only on Weinberg. If you wish, comment on them all. But don’t keep hiding under the desk and pretending it’s my fault you won’t come out.

I'm not "hiding under the desk". I'm trying to make sure I don't say or agree to anything ambiguous that can be mischaracterized or take out of context. That's not your fault, but we aren't the only ones here.

[BroJoeK]

I usually manage to read a book or two a month, selections often influenced by the debates on FreeRepublic. Last week I picked up this book:

Scott, Evolution Vs. Creationism

Among other points of interest, you might note that she corrected what I learned in high school science class (many years ago) about the nature of science.

The way I learned it, back then:

Scientists begin with data.
From which they form hypotheses to explain the data
A tested and confirmed hypothesis then becomes a theory.
A theory tested and confirmed many times may become a "scientific law." And there are relatively few "laws of science."

Well turns out, that's not right, because it misses the main point.

The actual sequence is as follows:

Science begins with facts, which are confirmed observations. Example: "living things are composed of cells."

From the facts, scientists form testable hypotheses to explain the facts. Example: "If brightly colored male guppies are more likely to attract predators, then in environments with high predation, guppies will be less brightly colored."

Sometimes a confirmed hypothesis can be reduced to a scientific law, which is usually a mathematical statement of what will happen under certain circumstances. The scientific law says WHAT will happen, but it does not explain WHY.

To explain WHY requires a THEORY. A scientific theory is a confirmed hypothesis explaining why facts and laws work the way they do. No theory is "proved," but theories are confirmed, or might be disproved.

Point is: a theory is not "less than a law," but rather uses facts and laws to form higher explanations of what is going on in the natural world.

In short: a theory is still a theory, no matter how many times it's confirmed.

[BroJoeK]

Mr. Silverback: "Is it warranted to believe that a person who says weakening the "nightmare" hold of religion would be the greatest thing scientists have ever done is a believer in scientism?"

Scientism defined:

"Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality.

"Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview.

"Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."

I agree with tacticalogic, the answer is "not necessarily." But I'd also say, one should not be so surprised to find among scientists a certain number of "scientism-ists." So what?

Science by definition is the study of the natural world. Many scientists believe in a supernatural or metaphysical world, but that should have nothing to do with their work in science.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Science by definition is the study of the natural world. Many scientists believe in a supernatural or metaphysical world

Actually, you said this:

"If you don't like naturalism, then by definition you cannot be a scientist."

Lurkers can go here: What is Naturalism?

[Fawn]

What difference does that make??

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I usually manage to read a book or two a month, selections often influenced by the debates on FreeRepublic.

Supplement that with some classic evolution books. Like this one, which was one of the most popular evolution books in Germany:

The Evolution of Man

The book was also published by Charles Kerr &co. Here's Kerr's promo blurb:

"Modern socialism is closely allied to the modern scientific theory of evolution, and it is impossible to understand it without some knowledge of that theory. Now evolution is accepted as a working basis in every university of Europe and America, and no one with a scientific education wastes time in questioning it. Nevertheless, there has until now been no popular explanation of the evolution of man in simple form at a low price. There is a very good reason for this. If laborers understand science, they become socialists, and the capitalists who control most publishing houses naturally do not want them to understand it. "The Evolution of Man" tells in full detail, in a clear, simple style, illustrated by pictures, just how the descent of man can be traced back through monkeys, marsupials, amphibians, fishes, worms and lower forms of life, down to the animals composed each of a single cell. Moreover, it proves that there is no such fixed line as was formerly thought to exist between the organic and the inorganic, but that the same life-force molds the crystal that molds the cell. It is not only simple; it is up to date and gives the latest discoveries in science. It is the book on the subject."

[tacticalogic]

I agree with tacticalogic, the answer is "not necessarily." But I'd also say, one should not be so surprised to find among scientists a certain number of "scientism-ists." So what?

The difficulty lies not in considering that there may be some that would fit the description, but in expressing it in a manner that can't be misrepresented later.

Science by definition is the study of the natural world. Many scientists believe in a supernatural or metaphysical world, but that should have nothing to do with their work in science.

There is "metaphysical naturalism", and there is "methodological naturalism".

Unfortuanately, there are also rhetorical exercises in sophistry that specialize in conflating the two, and making science appear to be intrinsically atheistic. I'd advise being very careful to explicitly declare exactly which one you mean any time you make a reference to it.

[js1138]

In short: a theory is still a theory, no matter how many times it's confirmed.

Maybe we could make that into a sticker and put it on textbooks.

;^)

[schaef21]

****I’d like to see the so-called ‘evidence’ that God put Adam and Eve in a garden of Eden. Tell me, were they in the caveman form and what race were they? How old were they when he dropped them here?****

Your question, in essence, is about origins.

I accept the biblical account of creation as accurate because I know the Bible to be historically accurate (archaeology has proven this time and time-again) and the number of prophesies that have been made that were fulfilled is staggering. I therefore accept the Bible as truth.

This is, of course, not empirical science.

Since you don’t believe this account, you must believe the story the science books tell that we came out of a mud puddle. Here’s my question to you....what evidence do you have that:

a) A mud puddle sprung up out of nowhere. (Violating the Law of Cause and Effect and the First Law of Thermodynamics)
b) Life sprang up out of the mud puddle (Violating the Law of Biogenesis)
c) Genetic information was continually added until we evolved to the point that we are today (Contradicting what is observed today...there has never been a mutation that has been observed to add information to the genome).

When you examine your viewpoint you’ll discover that you have taken your position on faith as well.

I have put my faith in God....you have put your faith in secular science that starts with the premise that there is no God and that there can only be natural explanations for everything. In doing so you have to accept the fact that violations of natural law are acceptable in order to maintain your original premise.....that natural law rules.

To answer your other questions - The human race and they were mature adults...age is irrelevant.

[Fawn]

I believe that God put a protoza in the mud puddle.