Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
Perhaps "abstract" as opposed to "concrete" would have been a better choice of words. Mathematics is an abstraction. It is used to represent properties of real objects and forces, but it is not "real" in and of itself.
[[The question is whether God can be studied ysing the methods of science.]]
Who said GOD has to be studied? Forensic scientists don’t Study the intellegent creators behind the scenes- they study the RESULTS of the intelligent causer- They look for, and discover the tell-tale fingerprints of the intelligence behind the scenes- in NO way do they have to prove or even study the intelligent causer
I’d have to go dig for it to0. If metmom says she did not not make and doesn’t agree with the assesment, then I was mistaken and owe her an apology.
I looked back through, but didn’t see it- but I didn’t go al lthe way back to the beginning- I’ve gotta run for a bit and didn’t want to spend all day looking for it if it exists, but I can’t see that kind of statement coming from her, or perhaps it wasn’t worded right- which does happen on occassion & for which we’ve afforded you folks plenty of leway in, and ecxused from time to time as well.
Forensic science -- the same science that convicts criminals using DNA -- establishes common descent. Even Michael Behe admits that.
Why the repost of my statement? Not sure what you’re getting at? Forensics doesn’t have to discover who or what hte intelligence is, al lthey must do is present evidence that both shows that something (perhaps a crime scene, or a discovery of an ancient culture’s presence in an area) could not have occured naturally, and that it must have been intelligently caused- You can beleive little green frogs from mars was the intelligence if you like, but if enough evidence is accumulated to show that it was necessary for an intelligence to cause what is being examined, then your job as a forensic scientist has been fulfilled- you have presented evidence that the issue could not have occured naturally, and evidence that an intelligence was needed- that is how you ‘test for’ intelligence-
Then does this mean that the very basis of quantification is a fiction? Were that true, then how/why could we ever depend on it to give us useful, reliable measurements?
I’m sorry CottShop if my post offended you. BTW, I share your view of Macroevolution, FWIW. And certainly, “The TRUTH stands on it’s own accord.” People who deny it cannot abolish it.
[[Forensic science — the same science that convicts criminals using DNA — establishes common descent.]]
Oh really? And what evidence ‘establishes’ that? Behe can beleive what he likes- but unless he has actual proof that it does infact establish that, then all he is positting is an opinion- an a priori opinion at that. The Evidence does NOT establish common descent- to state so goes beyond the objective evidence and enters the realm of faith and religious belief. ALL it establishes is ‘connection to’- whether it be connection to’ nature, or ‘connection to’ intelligence. Behe has also argued that the evidence can just as well establish common design- He is man enough to admit that, but he personally BELIEVES that it more so shows descent- BUT again, he has NO concrete evidence to back that personal belief up- all he has is assumptions and a priori opinionso n the matter beyond the actual evidence.
Fair enough.
But to do this they need to specify what happened. You can't calculate probabilities without knowing what happened and when.
That quoting of Heinlein is lightweight, beyond goofy and into bizarre yote, about about as bizarre as some of your other fetishes.
No no- it didn’t offend- just wanted to be clear about what is presented here- Macroevos are always claiming Crationists don’t bring ‘science to the table’, and that simply isn’t true- it’s just that they systematically ignore what is broguht to the table, while glomming onto moot irrelevent issues (like my spelling for instance) in the hopes that we’ll be distracted from the central issues that were presented, thinking perhaps that because we’re not accreditted in some scientific journal, that we must hterefore all be dimwitted laypeople who don’t recognize silly arguments, and unsupported claims based on assumptions and a priori beliefs when we see them- and that’s only when these discussions turn into spitting matches- myself being to blame as well- but the science is brouight before the discussions get out of hand
Some opinions are worth more than others. Courts don't let just anyone testify as an expert, and Behe was pretty much the only biologist testifying at the Dover trial on behalf of the ID movement.
He also testified at a textbook trial more recently in California.
But more important than who testifies is how they frame their arguments. The same argument that identifies criminals and identifies relatives in custody cases confirms common descent. I'm not aware of anyone in the ID movement who denies the evidence for common descent.
Scoundrels come in all varieties, my friend!
No, it simply means that it is not within the scope of things that have observable and empirically measureable properties. That was the context in which the statement was made.
Feel free to bring some science to the table.
Name or describe in some detail the single best argument against evolution. We’ll debate your best argument for a while and try to avoid getting off on tangents.
[[Mathematics is an abstraction. It is used to represent properties of real objects and forces, but it is not “real” in and of itself.]]
it’s an argument from nihilism- the truth doesn’t exist, and nothing is objective- only subjective reality exists- universal moral values don’t exist either, but apparently, subjective moral values imposed by nihilists are far superior to universal truths and moral values- Universal moralists in hteir minds are nothign but oppressive ignorants who wish to oppose stifeling objectivism on everyone, who apparently could get along just fine in their own subjectively moral world. We’re told that subjective reality and moralism is more ‘compassionate’ because it allows peopel to ‘be free’ while objective moralism apparently hangs a yolk aroudn hte necks of poor souls just trying to help out their fellow man by giving everyone as much ‘freedom’ and’protection’ as possible- but in reality, subjective moralism imposes far more restriction, and far less protections than it proposes to delve out. Nihilists don’t truly mean that ‘nothing is real or objective’, what htey mean is that they think hteir subjective moral values are superior, and that objective moralists shoudl hterefore adopt their views, or pay the consequences. Their reality is subconsciously tightly defined by their own self imposed set of rules, but consciously denied as havign any basis in reality. They aren’t truly subjctive- for if they were- total anarchy and apathy towarsd other’s feelings woudl ensue, and htey know this
Not saying tacticlogic is a nihilist- but the argument comes from a form of nihilism
Yes; I've noticed that some of our evo correspondents like to change the subject a lot.... It almost seems a favored tactic — that, and the ad hominum attack.
I'm reminded of the great physicist Niels Bohr's insistence that science is "public property," and its findings should be presented to the public in as understandable a form as possible. His great friend Einstein shared this view.
Nowadays, however, science is increasingly thought to be an "elite" enterprise, conducted by accredited professionals who are not in any way accountable to the public. "Civilians" not only are not to be consulted, they are to be ignored....
Thanks so much for writing, Cottshop! Keep up the good work!
[[But to do this they need to specify what happened.]]
Which they do- they investigate (I’m assuming we’re now alluding to ID science) what happend, and how it was constructed- just as any good forensic scientist would do.
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.