Posted on 12/03/2004 3:48:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Bravo. As someone who has sometimes battled creationist forces in a school, I can say that scientists constantly shoot themselves in the foot with statements like that. The people I deal with can't tell whether a theory is well supported or not but they instantly recognize a hostile theological position. If the Weinbergs and Dawkins' of this world didn't exist, the creationists would have to invent them.
I would characterize the 'hopeful' statement as one of blind faith -unproven assumptive posit...
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=16
From ARN.Org.
You've missed the point. I'm not disputing that science can unravel brain function, I'm asserting that science can't unravel whether or not the laws governing brain function are personal.
To assert that there are "impersonal laws" isn't necessarty for science, it's a question that science can't answer, therefore Weinberg and scienctists would be better served by wearing their agnostic hat and shrugging their shoulders about nonscientific questions.
"It's not my job," isn't that hard to remember.
Scientists presume the right to throw sharp, nonscientific elbows, but are quick to cry foul when nonscientific ideas intrude on science.
The theory of evolution is just a theory
The word theory means something different in science than it does in common usage. Theories are the result of a hypothesis, or educated suggestion, being tested and found to be consistent with observation. A theory coherently explains a large range of observations. It is in contrast to a law which simply expresses a regularity seen in observations without attempting to explain that regularity. Theories do not become laws. Laws are not somehow more certain than theories. Both are on equal footing in science.
There's no way life could have arisen from non-living chemicals/There's no way to get from the big bang to humans
Neither the origin of life nor the big bang is covered in the theory of evolution. Evolution only applies once life has begun. It makes no difference how life began.
The second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible
The second law of thermodynamics states that IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, entropy always increases. The earth is not a closed system. The earth receives energy from the sun. This release of energy from the surface of the sun at a temperature of 6000K to space at a temperature of ~3K represents an enormous increase in entropy. Therefore, even taking evolution into account, the entropy of the earth/sun system does indeed increase over time.
Creationism is just as valid a theory as evolution/Evolution is not really science
To qualify as a theory in science, an idea must explain observations in such a way as to be falsifiable. This means that it must predict something and finding that this prediction is not true would require abandonment or serious modification of the theory. Evolution meets this requirement. For example, evolution predicts that in billion year old rock layers, no fossils of modern humans will be found. It predicts that all organisms on earth will have nucleic acids as their genetic material. It predicts that it will be possible to observe changes in the genepool of organisms. All of these predictions have been borne out by observations. If any of them are not, then evolution would have to be seriously modified or abandoned. I am sure that someone with more knowledge of biology could provide many more such examples. Creationism, on the other hand, by its very nature can offer no such predictions. The most basic premise of creationism is that there is an omnipotent God who created the universe. By virtue of God's omnipotence, there is no possible observation that could falsify this premise. God could have made the universe appear any way He wanted it to appear.
Evolution has never been proven
Neither has quantum theory, or relativity, or any other scientific theory or law. Science never offers proof, merely strong evidence for an idea. Evolution is backed by a large amount of observational evidence.
You are reading a great deal more into Weinberg's statement than is actually there. Would you disagree with the following statement?: "there is nothing apparent at present that requires resort to supernaturalism in the ongoing scientific inquiry into the source and functioning of the human mind."
Yes, I remember. How's it going?
Your tinfoil hat is on too tight.
This is humorous to me. Your observation gets to the heart of the dilemma. How will a "scientist" be able to recognize such "evidence" my friend?
As you seek to answer question that then you will be confronted with the reductionist's conundrum. Science can't get outside of itself.
I would characterize the 'hopeful' statement as one of blind faith -unproven assumptive posit...
I'm not entirely certain I understand the point you're making here, but I'll guess that you're saying that Weinberg's view that the human mind is not beyond the hope of scientific understanding is somehow based on 'blind faith'. Well, you might be right if the last 400 years or so of scientific discovery hadn't happened. But they have, and we're the heirs to a still-unfolding understanding of the phenomena of nature that is truly cosmic in scope. Given that history, Weinberg's doesn't seem to be 'blind faith' at all, but rather a reasonable take on what future investigation might show.
'Blind faith' seems to me to be something along the lines of what motivates suicide bombers to blow up themselves and others.
It's a toughie, that's true. I was being charitable.
Remove me from your ping list.
that creationists are largely impervious to evidence and argument.A gratuitous generalization. But that's not uncommon, these days.
I would call your attention to the word 'largely'.
And, er, "that's not uncommon, these days"? Generalization? (smile)
Understood.
I have come to the conclusion that science cannot put an iron in the, "Is there a God?" fire. That's a poetic way of saying what Fatalis has been saying. What's a fair restriction for Bible/creationists is also a fair restriction for sci/reductionists. (and vice versa).
As far as I can tell, folks can use science up to a point (and I use the word point with purpose). One can say science points to God and one can say I don't see science pointing to God. Either statement is a personal observation, merely a subjective observation, probably based upon one's spiritual history or lack thereof.
Nothing new to report.
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.