You're still making a big leap to conclusions. Please point out the post, in this or any other thread, where I said, overtly or implicitly, that science is a system of values or morality. I have never said that. I have, very clearly and on several occasions, stated that the practitioner of science brings their values to the profession, not the other way around. Perhaps you have read creationist websites where those selling literal creationism flat-out say that science is a religion, and you are projecting that belief on me?
Already you have to walk back a flat assertion with a qualifier which did not exist in the conversation prior to my post #143. Now you elect to retrospectively make it specific to scientific methodology. Not credible (nor accurate).
I used exactly the same qualifier in post #137; I have "walked nothing back." Even in allmendream's posts, where he didn't put "scientific" and "useless" in the same sentence about creationism, it was clear by the context that he was referring to the utility of creationism to guide scientific inquiry.
Tell that to an observant Jew.
Um... okay. So if I decide to cook a Passover dinner for one of my orthodox Jewish friends, I'll just pull out the Bible instead of Googling Passover recipes. Right.
Witness the many edifices (both high and low) raised to the glory of the Creator.
Sing praises to God, the Creator of Mankind and of the Universe. The concert repertoire is rife with references to the Creator.
Witness the number of edifices used by Planned Parenthood. Listen to the number of songs glorifying atheism, socialism, or foul treatment of women. The evidence indicates that morality is brought to, not imparted by, the profession. I cannot think of a single profession where that is not true.
Meaning what? That the Judeo-Christian God has no relevance in our day-to-day, ordinary existence, that is, to “any number of human activities”? ...
You're taking things way beyond the scope of what I said. I thought I made it clear previously that I do not care to discuss philosophy, and you dove head-first into it here. That said, I can point out that there are large numbers of people who have not accepted the relevance of a Judeo-Christian God--there are many Buddhists, Zoroastrians, pagans, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc., who see a completely different faith-based relevance to their daily lives. What I meant by "our standing with God" is our personal understanding of our relationship with God.
Irrelevant. The experiment “played out” in this society . . . with the ethics appearing retrospectively to the preponderance of the experiment. We can guess how the Tuskegee Experiment might have “played out” in the Japanese society you mention (the Japanese society before 1946) or in the Nazi culture of Dr Mengele . . . very much like it was playing out here until Science learned late in the game that a society with a Judeo-Christian Tradition has ethics.
How much time have you spent actually discussing the Tuskegee experiment, and its relevance to the evolving field of ethics in medical research? Are you aware that everyone involved in the Tuskegee experiment believed in the rightness of what they were doing, that they were doing something good for the research subjects? The big moral lapse that occurred during the Tuskegee experiment was that when a treatment for syphilis was developed, the treatment was not offered to the research subjects, and the experiment continued. Had no treatment for syphilis been invented, and the experiment continued, there may not have been an outcry at all. Although there was the matter of all the subjects being poor black men... which might have raised outrage, but for a different reason.
aAre you proposing, as did one staunch “defender” of Science (now self-exiled to the icy confines of Darwin Central), that scientific research has no point? So desperate was he to establish that no cultural values were tied to Science. Is science research really done purely for its own sake, divorced from any human values?
So what if a main motivation for doing research is for the sake of feeding one's curiosity? You can find any number of professionals who chose their profession because of a personal passion. Being personally driven to do a particular kind of work does not make that work pointless. Would you also say that the work of our many men and women in uniform has no point as well, because many of them joined the military purely for the sake of being in the military?
If your quarrel is with the YECs (or some part of them), why do you cast aspersions on a whole religion rather than take up your dispute specifically with YECs?
Throughout the course of these discussions, I've made an effort to be very clear about the fact that I am criticizing YECs, and not Christians in general. If I were trying to disparage all of Christianity, I would never have stated that there is no reason to believe that being a scientist and being a Christian are incompatible.
And in my post #143, I pointed out that it was in your post #137 that your qualifier signaled a “walking back” of a prior categorical assertion.
“Even in allmendream's posts, where he didn't put "scientific" and "useless" in the same sentence about creationism, it was clear by the context that he was referring to the utility of creationism to guide scientific inquiry.”
Not a credible statement; amd’s assertion is categorical: “creationism is useless.” Period. No qualifiers.
“So if I decide to cook a Passover dinner for one of my orthodox Jewish friends, I'll just pull out the Bible instead of Googling Passover recipes. Right.”
Don’t be insulting. The reason you would Google “Passover recipes” is because of your guests’ religious beliefs. Now you are proposing that a Torah (or a bible) must be read as though it were a recipe book?
“Witness the number of edifices used by Planned Parenthood.”
Yeah, and witness the number that are used by religions. Both Judeo-Christian and others. Likewise the presence of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the concert repertoire. Your narrative seems to prove in your mind that the presence of other influences obviates the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is not surprising. In our society (Western Civilization), the prevailing attitude seems to be that wherever any other model exists, the Judeo-Christian Tradition must vacate.
Your original synopsis seemed to be that, besides scientific methodology, Creationism is useless for “cooking,” for “architecture,” for “musical composition.” I provided counter examples. You didn’t like them, suggesting the presence of other influences somehow negated the Judeo-Christian tradition. And, oh yeah, with “civil engineering” I had to confess a lack of an adequate rejoinder.
“You're taking things way beyond the scope of what I said.”
The “Who, Me?” defense. I asked for clarification. What I receive is “Who? Me?”
“I thought I made it clear previously that I do not care to discuss philosophy”
Off again. “Who? Me?” You don’t care to discuss philosophy except when you care to discuss philosophy. Don’t start a brawl and then announce you’re leaving the party. If you don’t care to discuss philosophy . . . don’t discuss philosophy.
“That said, I can point out that there are large numbers of people who have not accepted the relevance of a Judeo-Christian God”
On again. Which proves what? Are we back to the presence of any other entity vacates the Judeo-Christian?
“What I meant by "our standing with God" is our personal understanding of our relationship with God.”
It’s personal . . . and not to be discussed?
“How much time have you spent actually discussing the Tuskegee experiment, and its relevance to the evolving field of ethics in medical research?”
So, there is ethics in Science? Or is that only when it’s convenient for there to be ethics in Science?
“The big moral lapse that occurred during the Tuskegee experiment was that when a treatment for syphilis was developed, the treatment was not offered to the research subjects, and the experiment continued.”
The “evolving” ethics just weren’t advanced enough? A fuller discussion of the “lapse” somehow makes it all OK? The fact that a cure was developed well before the experiment’s conclusion notwithstanding, another “big moral lapse” that resided in the Tuskegee Experiment, at its inception, was the knowledge of the intense suffering the subjects (and their families) would endure in the disease’s advanced stages.
But . . . you know . . . eggs – omelette.
“So what if a main motivation for doing research is for the sake of feeding one's curiosity?”
Which obviates . . . what?
“Being personally driven to do a particular kind of work does not make that work pointless.”
So you don’t endorse those who look to divorce Science from cultural values (as do some)?
“I've made an effort to be very clear about the fact that I am criticizing YECs, and not Christians in general.
By “Christians in general” do you include the Creationist beliefs shared by all Judeo-Christians? I have to hand it to you. You’ve maintained plausible deniability better than do most.
Now . . . put on your best wounded “Who, Me?”