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 ...
And it is indispensable to the acquisition of knowledge about our world, and ultimately to human well-being.
Indeed. And whether it is a measurable quantity or not is irrelevant to it being indespensable. So what's the problem?
I have been in that discussion very recently.
js: How do you go about testing the God hypothesis?
That's changing the subject.
Having scientists demand that God not be considered as even existing is excluding God from the debate. Same as demanding that even if He did exist, He does not play any role in nature now.
Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, for that matter virtually all those famous scientists who laid the foundation of what we know as modern science, didn't exclude God from consideration.
It was INCLUDING God in it all that enable Newton to determine that an orderly God created an orderly, predictable universe capable of being studied in a logical, rational manner. That concept came from religious belief and scientists are riding the coattails of that conclusion.
While most things have natural explanations, that doesn't preclude supernatural ones at all. There could be supernatural ones as well. Perfectly true, perfectly valid, perfectly unknowable by the scientific method, but perfectly real.
Acknowledgment that God could be behind something inexplicable instead of dogmatic dicta that it is not possible, period, end of story, would be a good first step.
So what if it turns out God really did supernaturally create all life spontaneously as is recorded in Scripture? That doesn't change what we DO know about genetics and variation within species. Neither does it negate the research being done nor the progress made in science that have used THOSE concepts.
I keep asking for some way to include God in science, and I get no answer.
What is your suggestion for research that includes God as a causative agent?
Was it on this thread? Or just recently?
“Where? I must have missed those submissions? Perhaps you can just briefly recap those claims- then I’ll better be able to address this question?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2138007/posts?page=232#232
If memory servers (don't laugh, it could happen!) it was fairly recently, but possibly not on this thread. If I am mistaken and you haven't made and don't agree with that assesment, just say so. I'll owe you an apology and you'll have it.
Any scientist who claimed that scientific conclusions are perfect and complete would be looking for another profession. I mean, what would be let to research?
There is a difference between claiming scientific explanations are incomplete and claiming that the sun revolves around the earth. There really are settled issues.
That's what I've read on the AiG site as well, although I've had trouble finding the article recently. They've rearranged things some.
In a nutshell, their proposal (theory, if you will) was that when God created the kinds of animals that they were created with 100% perfect fully loaded, fully functioning DNA; no *junk* DNA.
As the species became isolated from each other, certain characteristics were lost through natural selection resulting in the differences we see today in obviously related species, such as the big cats. (For the record, probably a couple years ago, an evo commented that the big cats all have identical skeletons and that the only reason we know know that they are different species is that we can see them and see the surface differences- but I have no idea who that was and I didn't think to save the post at the time)
Anyway, the point is that those who propose an undirected, naturalistic, evolution from a single cell interpret that as evidence of macro-evolution (speciation, whatever your term of choice is) instead of simply variation within a kind.
The label of *species* is somewhat arbitrary and applied somewhat capriciously, often, it appears, in a manner as to merely be used to provide evidence to support the ToE.
But for all the scientific experiments using bacteria and fruit flies, they are still bacteria and fruit flies. Lots of variation but no speciation of the degree that evolutionists claim happened in the past.
That sounds pretty much like what Newton had in mind when he developed the scientific method, although I believe that he considered science another way of learning more about God.
I don't believe that he though you could apply it to study God Himself, as you would his creation, but that through studying creation you could come to conclusions about God.
What's fascinating is that species were all created to look exactly as if they were descended from common ancestors. Remarkable.
We know that that's not how human designers work, because we have numerous instances of commercial food crops that are designed and engineered by humans.
All of them can instantly be identified as designed because their genomes do not conform to the rules of common descent.
It was spamming the thread. He could have explained it in laymen's terms and either provided links or post it on his homepage.
As it was, people got to the point of scanning the posts and as soon as they recognized the diagrams they'd seen dozens of times before, decided that there was nothing new to be found and didn't read it.
If there was something new buried in them there was no way of knowing without reading the WHOLE thing again, and people just don't have that kind of time. It would have been better to just post the new stuff so that people could have seen it, and link the old.
You haven't been paying attention. FR has a number of geocentrists, and they are never challenged by their fellow evolution critics.
We also have folks who deny that HIV causes AIDS, that Einstein is wrong (not just incomplete), that the speed of light and the force of gravity can vary dramatically, and that the rates of radioactive decay can vary dramatically.
I know that I contend (not alone) that it is impossible for anyone to be truly objective as we are all part of the world that we are investigating.
Perhaps what I suggested was that it was not objective of scientists to dismiss the possibility of miracles since there is no way for science to determine the source of the unexplained circumstances, or something to that effect.
Allowing that something could have been a real miracle is objective.
(chuckle, chuckle) It’s so embarrassing; this business of having one’s internal inconsistencies publicly exposed.
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.