Posted on 08/17/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey
For the better part of a century, socialists (Democrats) have been using science as a weapon to destroy the very fabric of American society. Today they propagate the global warming myth, forty years ago they were sounding the global cooling alarm, and they’ve used junk science to teach evolution in our nation’s schools.
To the socialist it is somehow easier to believe that aliens put us here or that we emerged from some primordial sludge than it is to believe in God. Socialist leadership, under the guise of “organizing”, use the environment, gay rights, immigration, or any number of causes as a form of religion to keep their unwitting masses in line. Their absence of God, and therefore morality, leaves these desperate souls longing to believe in something. How else can you explain a human being that is willing to risk their life to save a tree or a whale, yet they have no qualms about aborting a baby or assisted suicide?
(Excerpt) Read more at toddkinsey.com ...
Really, I don't need to read further, because this is a false assumption based on nothing but an assumed worldview. In other words, you reject another possible framework because it doesn't fit your assumed, baseless, and arbitrary framework. Circular thinking.
bookmark
You are just plain rude.
I put a lot of thought and effort into making that reply, because an honest answer to the question required it and couldn't be delivered through a flippant comment.
You should have stated up front that you had no intention of even reading any response that doesn't support your preconceived opinion; it would have saved me an hour of effort.
The least you can do if someone is going to take time to make a thoughtful reply to you is read it. Even if you disagree with it.
The day after God made the earth, I wonder how old scientists would have said it was?
I read the rest of your post after my response.
The rest of it, also, portrayed assumptions of what a “designed universe would look like”. “Would look like” to whom?
Funny that you refer to my “preconceived opinion” without seeing the plank in your own eye. I understand my own assumptions and what my “ultimate authority” is, do you understand yours?
That’s a good point to ask “old earth creationists”...
How old was Adam the instant he was brought out of the dust?
Last Thursday-ism.
Been on vacation-ism.
Well, the scientific method ain't exactly rocket science, exDemMom. It all boils down to seven steps:
(1) Make observation(s);I'm scratching my head trying to see what the scientific method has to do with Darwin's theory.... The question reminds me of something Bacon said:
(2) Ask a question about what is observed;
(3) Do research (background);
(4) Formulate a hypothesis;
(5) Test the hypothesis;
(6) Analyze the results;
(7) Communicate the results.
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects [e.g., as "no data," as Stephen Jay Gould put it]; in order that by this great and pernicious predeterminism the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.... [W]hat a man had rather be true he more readily believes....Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626, English philosopher, statesman, scientist, lawyer, jurist, literary artist — an absolutely brilliant, amazing personality) is usually credited as the originator of the scientific method, an inductive method based on empirical observation, rather than a deductive one; i.e., one based on logical reasoning. He opined that Aristotle "made his natural philosophy a mere bondservant to his logic, thereby rendering it contentious and well nigh useless." Purely logical processes are ineluctibly "subjective" ones. On the one hand, Bacon wanted to expunge "subjectivity," indeed all of "metaphysics," from science. On the other, he also recognized this:
The sciences which we possess come for the most part from the Greeks. For what has been added by Roman, Arabic, or later writers is not much nor of much importance; and whatever it is, it is built on the foundation of Greek discoveries.Arguably Bacon's own method was built on the Greeks, specifically including Aristotle's theories of causation. There are four Aristotelian causes: formal, material, efficient, and final. Bacon retains the first three, but banishes the fourth — final cause. Of final cause, Bacon wrote: "...final causes...have relation clearly to the nature of man rather than to the nature of the universe, and from this source have strangely defiled philosophy." Thus, he suggests, they are "subjective" — that is, relating to the human sphere exclusively.
Formal cause in science refers to "initial conditions"; material cause to "matter"; efficient cause to "energy." Final cause has been banished, on the ground that it clearly relates "to the nature of man," and presumably not to the nature of the universe.
But this is a rather sweeping claim. In Aristotle, final cause is "the cause for which all the other causes exist." Translation: Final cause refers to purposes, goals. While I agree with Bacon that a scientist must be ever aware of how his own preferences and presuppositions shape his science, he seems to reject out of hand the notion that nature is purposeful in its operations. Yet I for one cannot conceive of a biological function absent the idea of final cause — to purposes, ends, goals to be met.
You yourself, exDemMom, point to just this problem:
To me, what is absolutely mind-boggling is that life is maintained in every single organism through the process of countless gadzillions of chemical reactions, and those reactions occur when and where they are needed without any conscious input at all. The fact that gadzillions of chemical reactions can coordinate so well in such a manner that seems so unlikely, however, does not suggest to me that God is up there in Heaven directing all those reactions... I'd think that even for God, that would get boring.A couple of observations. (1) You cannot show/demonstrate that "all those reactions" occur "without any conscious input." (I'm not talking about God's consciousness here.) (2) Absent direction toward a global purpose, how do you explain how "gadzillions of chemical reactions can coordinate so well" in biological situations? Does DNA bark out the orders here, or what?
I have read that DNA is not directly "information," but an encoding of information from a non-local "source." A set of mechanical processes is too information poor to account for the staggering complexity, cooperation, and "success" of the astronomical number of biological processes that must be dynamically coordinated at all levels of the bodily system in order for the "global" organism to maintain its existence.
But we know from Newton that there are no such things as "non-local" causes in nature.... Generally, objects have to be in close proximity in order to affect each other.
However, quantum theory puts non-locality at center stage — along with the critically important (subjective) observer....
Well, enuf for now. I'd love to do a little turn re: Sir Isaac Newton. Maybe another time!
Oh just one more thing before I sign off: You wrote —
The premise of creation is that it is a perfect creation made by a perfect God. It therefore has no need to adapt because it is perfect. I see no evidence that that is the case. What I see is that biological systems are full of features that make no sense unless one accepts that they arose through random events (which aren't as random as creationists try to portray them; they do conform to physical laws which are quite constraining).I'm afraid I have to agree with Gourmet Dan that this is a total strawman. For God did not create a "perfect" creation at all, just a "good" one. Had God made creation "perfect," everything would be determined; there'd be no room for human free will in it.
Plus where do the "quite constraining" physical/natural laws come from? Do they not fall into the category of "non-observables," intangible, immaterial entities?
Among the "bizarre beliefs and motivations of scientists" seems to be the idea that only that which can be directly observed — material objects — can be said to truly exist. So how does science account for the existence of the physical laws?
In closing, the scientific method can give you "fact"; but it cannot give you "value" — what the facts actually mean. And this is why I do not share your belief that "expert science" is an adequate or desirable guide to public policy.
Thank you so much for writing, exDemMom!
You go girl......
BTW, all the Bacon quotes in my last were taken from his splendid and still eminently readable Novum Organum.
There is no question in my mind that Bacon was a brilliant, penetrating observer of the intellectual currents of his time, "scientific" (actually "natural philosophical" in the parlance of his day) and "theological." Also there is no question in my mind that he was — among his various other splendid accomplishments — a very great literary artist....
Bacon's language is penetrating, concise, transparent, fair-minded — amazingly conveyed in a manner out-of-tune with the existing "style" conventions of his time. IOW, it hits the modern ear pretty directly....
The best part, for me, was his elaboration of "The Four Idols." He had me variously laughing out loud so to bring tears to my eyes, or praying God to bless him for his astounding insight, by turns throughout....
Anyhoot, highly recommended reading....
Thanks, dear sister metmom!
Check your FReepmail.
Rachel got healed of a kidney stone today. She was scheduled for a lithotripsy this morning to have a stone that was blocking her kidney on Fri to be blasted.
When she went in there to have it done, they couldn’t find a trace of the stone, no fragments, no nothing, and no signs of blockage. It completely disappeared.
Still waiting for science to explain that away.
Darwin's theory was formulated on the basis of countless observations, i.e., as a result of application of the scientific method. His theory, as any theory, provides a logical framework that ties all the observations together. He wasn't even the first to formulate a theory of evolution; previous iterations of the theory had flaws.
I would point out that your seven steps of the scientific method aren't exactly in the correct order. I've never started off with making observations; I need to have a hypothesis in place first, or I won't even know what observations to make.
A couple of observations. (1) You cannot show/demonstrate that "all those reactions" occur "without any conscious input." (I'm not talking about God's consciousness here.) (2) Absent direction toward a global purpose, how do you explain how "gadzillions of chemical reactions can coordinate so well" in biological situations? Does DNA bark out the orders here, or what?
There are all kinds of processes that coordinate the reactions--they occur or are shut down in response to signals; they're controlled on the basis of feedback mechanisms. There really is no conscious thought behind them; they just occur. Each reaction taken alone is actually fairly simple. The complexity, and the wonder, of the system is that, at any given moment, countless gadzillions of those reactions are occurring within each organism, and life is maintained.
Plus where do the "quite constraining" physical/natural laws come from? Do they not fall into the category of "non-observables," intangible, immaterial entities?
Among the "bizarre beliefs and motivations of scientists" seems to be the idea that only that which can be directly observed — material objects — can be said to truly exist. So how does science account for the existence of the physical laws?
I do not know why the physical laws are as they are, nor do I spend much time contemplating the issue. I can only observe their effect.
I often hear Rush Limbaugh describe himself as living in "Literalville," and I'm going to have to say that I think I may live there, too. Because I'm attuned to the world around me, and I want to know everything about it--abstract thought just does not have a lot of interest to me. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a metaphysical universe outside of this one; the only thing that can be accomplished with science is to describe the physical world we live in.
In closing, the scientific method can give you "fact"; but it cannot give you "value" — what the facts actually mean. And this is why I do not share your belief that "expert science" is an adequate or desirable guide to public policy.
I never expressed an opinion one way or the other on whether science should inform public policy, or how much influence it should have in that arena. I do know that science is often misused to try to force policy that people would otherwise reject (e.g. using global warming as an excuse to try to inhibit technological advancement). But that's an issue for other threads (where I have expressed plenty of opinion).
I think most hypotheses are the result of first having observed something you do not have an explanation for, and the desire to find one.
That is an illuminating look into your thought process. True science (and reality) doesn't have 'causes', 'purposes', 'ends', 'goals', etc., people do.
It is easy to see patterns in complex, chaotic, interacting systems and misinterpret those 'patterns' as a 'cause' or a 'goal'. Early man found 'patterns' or 'causes' all around him. He noticed for example that if he killed someone rains often followed, cause and effect, but he didn't understand the linkage so he invented God to provide the means. That is where sacrifices came from culminating with the sacrifice of God himself.
I know it is tough for you, but just try and imagine a complex ecosystem that isn't in anyway planned. It is hard because it is so interconnected and patterns pop out everywhere for us (our memories are based on association and pattern recognition). If you can make the leap of understanding, then you can see that each individual organism in the ecosystem is just doing it's own little thing and by chance it is there.
That is reality. I know it is hard to see sometimes, because we are so good at finding patterns. Correlation is not causation.
If you need to see a pattern, look for belief systems based on causation. Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming comes to mind (and I bet you thought I was going to pick on a religion didn't you?)
Most bad science is based on 'cause and effect,' be very careful basing anything on 'cause and effect'.
I didn't go through my whole process, but, in most cases, that isn't how I develop a hypothesis.
My usual process is to review the literature pertaining to the research I want to do, and then to identify gaps in the knowledge. I then make a hypothesis as to what knowledge I think might fill a gap. For instance, I might consider a disease process in which I know that the exposure happens one week before the symptoms, and try to make an educated guess as to what is happening between the two events. I then design the experiment to ascertain whether I am correct in my educated guess or not. And this is an iterative process: once I complete that phase of the research and analyze the results, I then try to identify the new gaps in knowledge which have been revealed during that phase, and plan further experiments (guided by new or altered hypotheses).
I will add that it is extremely easy to see intelligence or even sentience where it does not exist.
I have done extensive with cell culture work, using cancer cells of many different origins. Each of these cell lines has characteristics, and I get to know those cells the way I get to know the personalities of my cats. For instance: cells of a certain type love to be crowded next to one another, and when they are at the edge of the colony, they can be observed to reach out and attempt to find other cells. They will literally crawl across their Petri dish to find each other. Yet, for all that I describe them in anthropormorphic terms, they have no sentience whatsoever; they are responding purely on the basis of chemical responses to chemical signals.
Because of polarity and the nature of the universe everything IS cause and effect. Bad science results from mismatching cause and effect. For that matter, can there be bad science? In science, making mistakes is progress, as long as you realize, and sooner or later you will, the mistake.
I expect that most of you see my suggestion that we are all our own universe as corny but I see it applying here. The problem may be semantics, a common culprit in disagreements. exDem Mom sees the same phenomena the rest of us see but she ascribes to them different characteristics than we do. We see intelligence and design, an invisible hand, where she sees none. For me, it is hard to see the complexity of the interactions of the universe, both material and emotional, and attribute them to happenstance. We all agree that what is simply is but some of us ascribe value to certain parts of it and others don't.
I prefer the Christian view because it fills other needs for me than just a description of what is and how it came to be. If we care to pursue the scientific view we will usually end up back at the uncaused cause and will have gained nothing. Believers see a Divine Cause and relieve themselves of the mental stupor induced by contemplating Uncaused Cause.
Some disdain philosophy and simply accept what is and work with it from there. It is hard to know whether one's world view comes from knowledge gained or whether the knowledge gained is determined by one's world view. That is why I describe it as our own universes.
We end up as an example of the four blind men, each with access to only a part of an elephant, describing what they feel. To them their individual experiences are reality. To an outside observer it is obvious their knowledge is incomplete. A strictly scientific approach would examine the entire elephant and come up with a complete and detailed description of the animal. A poet would describe the elephant in a way that would place it emotionally in the human experience. Is one superior to the other or do we need both. God doesn't exclude science but scientists often try to exclude God, a fool's errand.
Everything, in my view, comes down to values. Values can't be dismissed outright as unimportant and unscientific because they guide our actions and our thinking. Many of our values, if not most, are instilled in us before we have developed critical thinking skills yet they guide our interests in and choices of fields of study and activity. Values can be and often are changed as we gain knowledge but our inclinations often persist. Our life's direction and progress are dependent upon our values.
God and No-God are each unprovable. We must settle for our opinions which are guided by our values.
No put that in a petri dish and examine it!
You are confusing action and reaction with cause and effect, there is no cause and effect.
God and No-God are each unprovable.
After you define your God I can disprove it.
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.