Introduction to "Creationism's Trojan Horse"

Butterflies and Wheels ^ | December 1, 2004 | Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross

[balrog666]

Again, science is under no requirement not to contradict the specific beliefs of specific religions.

Worth repeating.

[Physicist]

The unfortunate propensity of scientists to float back and forth between, philosophical, theological and scientific positions.

Why are a scientist's opinions any more "unfortunate" than anyone else's? It's not like these quotes came out of the pages of Physical Review.

unless you or Weinberg can find a way to measure purpose you can quit pretending that science has something to say about it.

Aristotle asserted that things fall because they want to find the lowest position they can reach. That's not an artefact of translation; he explicitly attributed an intentional purpose to the action. Am I really under an obligation to take that hypothesis seriously, and present it as a realistic alternative to Einstein's impersonal geometry?

[narby]

I would submit that "science" has contributed to the effectiveness of "the Wedge" by participating in politics in the active support of environmentalism. Many "scientists" have taken grant money from organizations with an agenda to impose power over others by using the emotional subject of the environment.

The people behind the "Wedge" are merely copying the success of "science" derived environmentalism. Rather than objectively applying real science and engineering, they use the same tactics of appealing to the general publics non-understanding of the field by using public relations as a tool.

If the 300 year old enlightenment is to survive, then science must clean it's own house. It must attack members of the scientific community that prostitute themselves to environmentally based political movements by lending them credibility.

Science must defend itself by cleaning house, so that Creationists cannot allege that "Darwinism" is merely another religion, because it has been caught red handed violating it's own professed goal of finding genuine "truth".

Science must regain it's respectability by distancing itself from political movements like environmentalism.

[Physicist]

Science must regain it's respectability by distancing itself from political movements like environmentalism.

As someone who has fought that battle in the very trenches, I agree with you.

[Dataman]

the authors are doubtless aware that creationists are largely impervious to evidence and argument.

Impervious to non-existent evidence and feeble fallacious arguments. Remember-

all evolutionists have to do to win the battle is actually produce that mountain of evidence they claim to have.

But they don't have it so how can anyone be impervious to it?

BTW, your argument is actually a straw man fallacy. Creationists are impervious to such fallacies, which seem to be the best arguments evolutionists can muster.

[Dataman]

It's very simple: if creationists could present evidence that evolution didn't happen, they would.

Although evolution has been mathematically discredited as a theory, many of its frauds exposed, and many of its assumptions debunked, it's defenders continue to embrace the lifeless corpse because logic, observation, and science really never had anything to do with it in the first place. Darwinists like Freddy Hoyle knew evolution is impossible so he moved on to another absurdity- pan spermia- rather than "give in" to belief in a Creator. That's the same reason evos won't let go. The alternative is personally repugnant to them.

Besides, anything that is not falsifiable is not really science, is it?

[narby]

Although evolution has been mathematically discredited as a theory, many of its frauds exposed

It would be easy to "prove" that some such and such bacteria will devour the earth by "mathematically" showing how many times it divides. But such a "mathematic proof" would be meaningless because it doesn't take into consideration many separate variables.

I don't know the "Evolution is mathematically discredited" stuff you're talking about. But certainly not enough is known about the details of evolution theory itself for any such calculation to be valid.

The Creationism/ID movement reminds me of the people who argue that we did not send Apollo astronauts to the moon. They can come up with various attacks against the evidence that may sway some people. But their argument is still bogus on its face. Creationism argues AGAINST something, rather than FOR something.

The fallacy of Creationism (whether or not God exists is beside the point, as God could certainly have created Evolution) is evident by the methods of its adherents. Rather than affirmatively promoting evidence they generate, they attack the science of Evolution in an attempt to destroy it. Not unlike the efforts of the Communists in the 30's to destroy Capitalism out of some emotional sense that it was evil.

[Varda]

They're unfortunate because things like the PBS interview are the face of science to the public and journal articles are not. Weinberg couples his theological assertions to the science which is his forte. The people reading this often can't uncouple an opposing theological view from the science when the scientist himself says that one thing leads to the other. Let me tell you this does not play well out here in suburbia.

As for the second part, I say Aristotle was a wonderful guy but if I understand current philosophy of science correctly, unless you can measure the notion of "will" in regards to falling things, it is not science.

[JeffAtlanta]

Although evolution has been mathematically discredited as a theory

We go through this in every thread. Evolution has never been mathematically discredited.

[ThirstyMan]

TM: When Weinberg starts out by saying, "It used to be obvious that the world was designed by some sort of intelligence," it's hard not to come to the conclusion that he's trying to debunk the existence of a Creator.

Physicist: Hard not to? In all candor, I can't make the stretch at all, even if I try. That you find it effortless amazes me. It most certainly is not obvious to me that anything in the natural universe is designed. That's true whether or not there's a creator--and I believe there is one.

I'm not trying to be beligerant, just seeking clarification on perhaps our point.
When you say, "It most certainly is not obvious to me that anything in the natural universe is designed." it leads me to ask,"How would we recognize this "obvious design"?
It has come up in this thread that a good scientist would acknowledge any evidence of design if he ever saw such. Do you accept that statement?
A scientist insisting that design is not evident is as great a stretch as saying it does, especially if one won't accept a criteria for recognizing design's existence.

[snarks_when_bored]

I was poking a bit of (good-natured!) fun. The claim that something is not uncommon nowadays is a generalization (in that it applies to more than just the particular instance at hand). I don't doubt that you could produce other instances supporting your claim on FR. But that's all to the good.

Best regards...

[Physicist]

Let me tell you this does not play well out here in suburbia.

"Suburbia" doesn't split the same hairs you do. Somewhere there may be a few recovering agnostics who were duped into faithlessness by a too-great reliance on Weinberg's infallibility on matters of theology--and boy, are they irate--but it's not a large demographic.

As for the second part, I say Aristotle was a wonderful guy but if I understand current philosophy of science correctly, unless you can measure the notion of "will" in regards to falling things, it is not science.

But if I call his notion unnecessary, will you cry foul?

[snarks_when_bored]

Impervious to non-existent evidence and feeble fallacious arguments. Remember- all evolutionists have to do to win the battle is actually produce that mountain of evidence they claim to have. But they don't have it so how can anyone be impervious to it?

I'm not a biologist or a paleontologist. I suspect that you're not, either. I do know that almost all of the biologists and paleontologists living today think that some form or other of evolution is likely to be the best account we currently have for explaining the development of living species. The journals of biology and paleontology are replete with articles presenting evidence and argument for evolution in specific organisms and organism types. There are hundreds of thousands of such articles. Unless all of these articles are written by rank ideologues and (calling a spade a spade) liars, your talk of "non-existent evidence and feeble fallacious arguments" is just empty rhetoric.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the probability that virtually the entire world community of biology and paleontology researchers around the world is populated with pure idealogues and liars seems to me to be indistinguishable from zero.

[Varda]

I actually knew someone who became an agnostic (maybe even atheist) because the science didn't match up to his vision of theology. Like Darwin, he believed Christianity meant Biblical Literalism. Once the evidence was in that literalism wasn't supported by the evidence, he simply dropped the religion part all together.

If you call his notion unnecessary, I will not only not cry foul, I will call it... gravity.

[beezdotcom]

You'll have to forgive me. My sense of humor is frequently impaired by the horror of realities that should be jokes, but aren't.

[Dimensio]

Ah, yes, Dataman repeats the old lie that evolution addresses the ultimate origins of life. He's been corrected on it a multitude of times, has not once presented a credible source that actually tries to link abiogenesis with evolution (though he did once cite four references that didn't say any such thing and he lied by claiming that they did), but he repeats it anyway. Dataman is constantly arguing against a definition of "evolution" that no one actually holds.

Honestly, when creationists like Dataman lie so brazenly, is it any wonder that creationists in general are dismissed as wackos?

[Dimensio]

If it can't be done, then the assertion of "impersonal laws" by Weinberg is non-falsifiable.

Well, that would make Weinberg's claim nonscientific, which I suppose was the point.

Of course, it comes down to it being Weinberg's opinion. Many theists who accept evolution have said that they believe that the revelations of science have strengthened their faith, so that really just shows that people will derive out of science what they want to see. That won't stop creationists from dishonestly claiming that evolution was created and is promoted to spread atheism, however.

[snarks_when_bored]

Understood. I try to discuss without wrangling, and I see that you do, too. That's a good thing.

[Dimensio]

The reason I cannot see as far as others is that giants are standing on my shoulders.

I'm not sure that's the actual quote. From what I've read, he was making a snide comment about someone else, claiming that the person in question could only see far because they stood on the shoulders of giants.

But I'm no historian. I'll try to dig up the real quote.

[snarks_when_bored]

Please forgive the redundancy in that last sentence. I'll have to stop revising my sentences so much, or else use Preview with a bit more care.