Posted on 11/03/2005 3:07:01 PM PST by Petrosius
No, and if I want to read the stupider kind of creationist arguments, I really don't need to be on this thread. See ya.
It is futile to argue with one who confuses reasonable conjecture and immutable fact; who is unwilling even to concede a distinction between the two; who equates the philosophy of evolution with empirical science.
This argument really goes beyond the truth of evolution; it is about the nature of science and its relationship to religion. For the dogmatic evolutionist his theory has become a way to assert independence from the necessity of belief in God. It has become the root of his belief system and thus must be made unquestionable. To reduce natural evolution to something less than a scientific fact is to reduce his whole world view to something that is only possible rather than absolute truth. We therefore have the sad result of naturalists resorting to dogmatism to defeat what they believe to be the dogmatism of religion.
A "science" that allows an infinite combination of matter over an indefinite period of time as explanatory of world history may easily consider itself above question. And so it is . . . for some.
I have a copy,
but I haven't read it yet.
It reminds me of
Berkeley finding fault
with infinitesimals. *
I don't know why, but
I always feel great
frustration looking back at
these kind of debates
since almost always
one side seems to offer up
bogus arguments
that, for some reason,
people take seriously
at the time. And then,
generations on,
when the issue is settled,
the damage is done.
I have to sort of
brace myself and gear up to
get into the book.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* "In addition to his contributions to philosophy, Bishop Berkeley was also very influential in the development of mathematics, although in a rather negative sense. In 1734 he published The Analyst, subtitled A DISCOURSE Addressed to an Infidel Mathematician. The infidel mathematician in question is believed to have been either (English astronomer who used Newton's laws of motion to predict the period of a comet (1656-1742)) Edmond Halley, or Isaac Newton himself, although the discourse would then have been posthumously addressed as Newton died in 1727. The Analyst represented a direct attack on the foundations and principles of calculus, and in particular the notion of fluxion or infinitesimal change which Newton and (German philosopher and mathematician who thought of the universe as consisting of independent monads and who devised a system of the calculus independent of Newton (1646-1716)) Leibniz had used to develop the calculus.
"Berkeley regarded his criticism of calculus as part of his broader campaign against the religious implications of Newtonian mechanics – as a defence of traditional Christianity against deism, which tends to distance God from His worshippers.
"As a consequence of the resulting controversy, the foundations of calculus were rewritten in a much more formal and rigorous form using limits. It was not until 1966, [!!] with the publication of Abraham Robinson's book Non-standard Analysis, that the concept of the infinitesimal was made rigorous, thus giving an alternative way of overcoming the difficulties which Berkeley discovered in Newton's original approach."
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.
