From my post #137: As a scientific methodology, creationism *is* useless.
From your post #143: To assert what you are saying is to assert that Christianity is useless.
It appears that I had the qualifier there all along. It was also apparent from allmendream's previous post that he was specifically talking about creationism in that same context, even though he didn't place the qualifier in the same sentence.
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?
I had specifically said creationism is useless for COOKING, whereupon you tried to inflate that statement to claim that I was talking about Jewish dietary laws. Even if I were (which I was not), I can still say that creationism is useless as a guide to those, as well. The Jewish dietary laws are set out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not in Genesis.
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.
You're still missing the point. The use of a tool for good or evil does not make the tool itself good or evil. Remember the old saying, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people"? You seem to be trying to convince me that things are good or evil, which is not a premise I accept.
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.
*I* haven't brought up philosophy. In every case in which it has been discussed, it was brought up by someone else. My *only* discussion of it has been to say that I avoid it.
So, there is ethics in Science? Or is that only when it’s convenient for there to be ethics in Science?
See above. Science is a methodology, a tool, and as such, has no intrinsic ethics. Just as with the use of any other tool, the ethics are contained within the practioner. Remember, guns don't kill people--people kill people.
The “evolving” ethics just weren’t advanced enough? A fuller discussion of the “lapse” somehow makes it all OK?
Does the fact that the field of applying ethics to research is still evolving somehow make it invalid? Do we expect fields of human knowledge to spring forth, fully developed and in their final form, in order for them to be valid? The question of how to conduct research ethically and humanely is still a huge topic of discussion--in PubMed, there are about 160,000 articles on "ethics" alone. The fact that we're still trying to come up with answers doesn't invalidate the effort.
So you don’t endorse those who look to divorce Science from cultural values (as do some)?
Again, see above. Cultural values may be brought to the practice of science, but science is not a driver of cultural values. Guns, people, kill, etc.
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.
By saying "Christians in general", I am expressing the fact that those who believe that the Genesis story is a literal accounting of events that happened ~6,000 years ago are only a subset of Christians, and are not reflective of all Christians. You can certainly believe that God created the universe without doggedly holding to a literal YEC belief that is directly contradicted by physical evidence.
Old naval tactic: when outgunned make much smoke. My post #143 pointed out that your post #137 was the first introduction of your qualifier “scientific methodology.” You haven’t introduced a counter argument, just smoke. Great billowing clouds.
“It was also apparent from allmendream's previous post that he was specifically talking about creationism in that same context”
The assertion does not prove the fact. Repeating the assertion does not change the status of the fact. allmendream’s assertion has been categorical (and uncompromising). Great billowing clouds.
“I had specifically said creationism is useless for COOKING”
I hear just fine, thank you, but I’ll take your remark as an instance of emphasis, not of shouting. Your assertion was in response to my observation that passages in the Torah were important to an observant Jew for food preparation (COOKING). Your response was simply to restate your original assertion. Great billowing clouds.
“*I* haven't brought up philosophy.”
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.”
Who recently quoted the above? You did (in case you’re gagging on the answer). Not a philosophical observation? Something you found in a science textbook? A peer-reviewed article perhaps? An ancient script found at an archeological site? Or, is it “Existential nonsense”? “Thought meandering”? Then why did you bother to mention it? It couldn’t be because the quote had any value.
I won’t bother with the balance of your post. It’s simply more of the same: an insult and a series of sidetracks down which you hope to send me galloping.
Great billowing clouds.
Except one thing:
I asked you if ethics are to be found in Science. You responded, “Science is a methodology, a tool, and as such, has no intrinsic ethics. Just as with the use of any other tool, the ethics are contained within the practioner.”
OK, so Science has no ethics. You’re on record.
“You can certainly believe that God created the universe without doggedly holding to a literal YEC belief”
Then address yourself to YECs and stop aiding and abetting in the slandering of a whole people.
“Remember, guns don't kill people--people kill people.”
Is that a philosophical remark? Thought meandering? Existential nonsense?